Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household: reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that on the ratification by the Swiss Federal Council of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the draft Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Switzerland) Order 1978, and on the ratification by the Government of the Republic of Austria of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the draft order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1978, which drafts were laid before your House, Orders may be made in the form of those drafts.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ORKNEY ISLANDS COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Millan presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Orkney Islands Council; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday, 9th May and to be printed [Bill 118].

Oral Answers to Questions —

Mr. Speaker: Before we turn to Questions, I remind the House that for some unaccountable reason supplementary questions have become much longer. It is only fair to those lower on the Order Paper that we should be brief and to the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Vehicle Excise Licences (Display)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the position of individuals who are prosecuted for failure to display vehicle excise licences even though they may have properly applied for such licences.

Mr. Rifkind: asked the Secretary or State for Transport what representations he has received concerning existing legislation that enables a motorist to be prosecuted for inadvertently failing to display a road fund tax disc on the windscreen of his vehicle; and what replies he has given.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): Prosecution for non-display of a current vehicle excise licence is a matter for the discretion of chief constables. Where a licence has expired in the last 14 days, or prior application for a new licence has been made, account is normally taken of this. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we intend to seek a legislation opportunity to provide for a statutory defence in these circumstances.
As for the accidental non-display of a licence, this has been the subject of very few complaints and we do not think that a change in the law is warranted.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us will be delighted by his answer, which demonstrates his acceptance that while these prosecutions may be lawful they are not regarded as just? As bureaucracy tends to be imperfect and motor cars essential, one hopes that he will be able to take swift action.

Mr. Horam: I note what my hon. Friend says. I know that he has had difficulty in one or two cases in his constituency.

Mr. Rifkind: May I remind the Minister of one of my constituents who successfully and properly purchased a current licence and displayed it on her windscreen, after which, inadvertently, the disc fell to the floor of her car and she found herself having no defence against the prosecution that was successfully brought against her? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his refusal to extend this welcome change of the law to enable a person to have a proper defence when he can prove that at the time of the alleged offence he had a valid tax disc?

Mr. Horam: It is difficult to draw a distinction in law between an accidental matter of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman referred and a deliberate infringement. We must have regard to the common sense and discretion of chief constables. It may be that the lady should have a licence holder with slightly stronger adhesive power.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that one of my constituents—I think that he knows about the case—went into his garage to get a new licence holder and came out to find a lady warden making a report that the tax disc was not visible? My constituent was taken to court and fined. He appealed against that decision, but it was upheld. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous that such an incident took place? Is he able to do something to make the change retrospective?

Mr. Horam: I do not think that I could make it retrospective to meet my hon. Friend's constituency problem. However, we are moving in the general direction that I have indicated. Before very much longer we shall have the opportunity to give legislative back-up to what is now a long-standing administrative tradition.

Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman include in the proposed legislation a provision that where the Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea can clearly be shown to be at fault in not having sent a reminder, the motorist be not fined? Will he ensure that where traffic wardens and others put a notice on a car to the effect that the vehicle has been sighted without a disc, that notice is in fact attached to

the vehicle, as that is not the case in the Metropolitan Police area?

Mr. Horam: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says, especially on the second point, and I shall bear that in mind.

Freight

Mr. Bowden: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union concerning the transfer of freight from road to rail.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): None, recently.

Mr. Bowden: What is the present position at Didcot? How does the Secretary of State reconcile his alleged belief in freedom of choice for freight users with what has happened at Didcot in recent months?

Mr. Rodgers: I hope that the problem at Didcot, which has been a proper cause for concern in this House and elsewhere, has been resolved. That is certainly my present understanding.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would it not help the transfer of freight from road to rail if heavy lorries were forced to pay the true cost of the wear that they impose on the roads? When will that happen?

Mr. Rodgers: Progress has been made in this direction. There is a Question on the Order Paper today about the matter. Some of the heaviest lorries do not pay their true cost yet, but I hope that they will do so. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is important.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Is the Secretary of State aware that we, too, welcome the agreement at Didcot? Will he also make clear, however, his absolute commitment to fair competition between freight carriers throughout Britain and give an assurance that he will use all his influence to defeat such strong-arm tactics if they ever arise again?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that that is the spirit in which we should now approach this problem. I want to see fair competition between road and rail. I have said so before in the House. Equally, I do not like strong-arm tactics by anyone, at any time, anywhere.

British Railways Board

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. Rhodes James: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.

Mr. William Rodgers: Tomorrow.

Mr. Spriggs: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he discuss with him the problems of investment in public transport, and especially the day-to-day investment in replacement, maintenance and improvements? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Railways Board has given figures which show that in 1977 there was a 5 per cent. level of improvement in railways compared with an 83 per cent. level of improvement in roads? Why is there this difference between investment for improving rail and that for improving roads?

Mr. Rodgers: Those comparisons are not entirely fair. On the whole I try to avoid them, and I like those most closely involved to avoid them, too. We have to consider the future of the railways. I want them to have a stable and central role. The chairman talks to me from time to time about this problem, which we have heard about often in the House.

Mr. Rhodes James: When the right hon. Gentleman sees Mr. Parker tomorrow will he remind him that for the first time since time immemorial it is now no longer possible to travel directly by rail from Kings Cross to Cambridge? Is he aware that this is a matter of extreme irritation to my constituents, and even to the hon. Member for Cambridge? When will direct services be revived?

Mr. Rodgers: I know that the chairman of British Rail follows questions and answers in the House very closely. He will be aware of the problems that the hon. Member mentions. This is an inconvenience for a number of people. Quite

a lot of people, however, are looking forward to the prospect of electrification the whole way.

Mr. Dalyell: The Government have accepted the main recommendations of the Leitch Report. What is being done about the recommendation that the railways should be helped where road and rail facilities exist?

Mr. Rodgers: It is most important that in making any decisions about major new trunk road schemes we should examine very carefully, in the light of what the Leitch Committee recommends, the alternative possibility of passengers and freight travelling by existing railway lines. A more sophisticated analysis is probably required than that available at present, but I understand the spirit of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that too many railway lines were closed in Wales in the late 1950s and early 1960s? Will he now urge the chairman of British Rail to consider opening some of these lines, so that we may persuade industrialists to come to Mid-Wales and other parts of the Principality?

Mr. Rodgers: Many people would say that too many railway lines were closed in the 1950s and 1960s not only in Wales but elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That has caused problems since. I have made it clear that I do not want to see the present chairman, or any other, doing another Beeching to our railway system. I do not know whether it is realistic to expect a large number of lines to be reopened, but I am very pleased to know that a good deal of refurbishing is going on. I shall be going to the Midlands next Monday to open a refurbished urban railway line in the Birmingham area, which I hope will do a great deal for the city.

Mr. Powell: In view of the Secretary of State's interest in refurbishing, will he draw Mr. Parker's attention to, or remind him of, the potential value to British Rail and its operations of an improvement of communications between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, particularly through Stranraer, where there is room for reopening and refurbishment, and also at Holyhead?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that Mr. Parker is well aware of that and is most anxious that British Rail should get its fair share of growing freight traffic between this country and Northern Ireland.

Miss Boothroyd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Board is so busy that it takes a Back Bencher two months to get an appointment with him? When my right hon. Friend sees the chairman tomorrow, will he tell him that it is high time that his so-called experiment on the quality and price of buffet foods was made permanent and was developed on a national basis in all regions? Will he tell him also that the defeatist gloom which exudes from the management of Travellers' Fare might have been dispelled had appointments been made with individuals from outside British Rail who have a more objective and progressive attitude towards the dreary, poor quality and expensive food that is on offer?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sure that the chairman of British Rail will take note of what my hon. Friend said. Opinions can differ about the quality of food on British Railways. Most of us have had a disastrous meal from time to time, but I can say that I have had some very good meals. I was delighted that the House responded so well last week to the speech of my hon. Friend, who suggested that to hand over British Rail catering to the motorway service area companies could be a disaster.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him when the electrification of Welsh railways will begin? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not even one mile of electrified railway in Wales, whereas there are more than 2,000 miles of electrified rail in England?

Mr. Rodgers: I hope that the chairman will not take too narrow a view of the question where electrification should first take place. His job is to consider the whole interest of the nation and to make recommendations to me on the most cost-effective projects for investment. He should continue to proceed on that basis.

Mr. Temple-Morris: When he meets the chairman, will the right hon. Gentle-

man remind him that last February the British Rail Pension Fund bought in Monte Carlo a clock for the sum of £87,448, no doubt much to the profit of Sotheby's, if not to the fund's pensioners? Will he remind him at the same time that there are many thousands of elderly employees and ex-employees who have no rights to widows' pensions? British Rail claims, through its chairman, that it is conducting an investigation into this. Will the Secretary of State undertake to speed up that investigation?

Mr. Rodgers: The House has previously discussed the question of the purchase of works of art by the British Rail Pension Fund. I do not think that we should make the connection that the hon. Gentleman suggests between the policy pursued by the trustees and the problem that individual pensioners may face. I shall, however, draw the matter to the attention of the chairman.

Cyclists

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make recommendations to local authorities to improve facilities for cyclists.

Mr. Horam: We have already drawn the attention of local authorities to the desirability of making cycling safer and more convenient, both in the White Paper on transport policy and in a recent circular. We are providing extra finance for selected local authority schemes and, as my hon. Friend is aware, we recently accepted a proposal to widen the powers of local authorities to provide cycle racks.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Friends of the Earth have recently published a bicycle planning book? Will he take steps to ensure that all local authorities read that book and take positive steps to help the cyclists? Will he stop the negative attitude of local authorities which on many occasions hinders cycling?

Mr. Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that advice and for providing me with a personal copy of the book in question. I am half-way through it.

Mr. Forman: Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to enhance the safety and well-being of cyclists? Is his


Department looking sufficiently actively at what goes on on the Continent, where pedestrians and cyclists are generally grouped together, rather than that cyclists should have to contend with motor vehicles?

Mr. Horam: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we appointed someone with sole responsibility for cycling and cycling matters in the Department following publication of the transport policy White Paper. I am sure that he will take that point of view and evidence from the Continent as well as British experience into account.

London Transport Services

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on assisting those London Transport services which serve areas of the Home Counties and which are currently in deficit.

Mr. Horam: It is for the county councils concerned to decide whether to assist these services financially, though we have made it quite clear that, where they are not already doing so, we hope that they will. The Government support their expenditure with grant.

Mr. McCrindle: Where there is disagreement between London Transport or the GLC and the county council in whose area the service operates, as is the case with the Epping to Ongar section of the Central Line in my constituency, is it the policy of the Department of Transport either to provide funds itself or at least to try to bring the parties together with a view to meeting the deficit?

Mr. Horam: It is not the policy of the Department to provide funds in those circumstances. Other counties are shouldering their responsibilities—the GLC and Hertfordshire, for example. In the first instance, it is up to the local authorities and the operators concerned to get together, though obviously my right hon. Friend and I are prepared to consider any further action which may facilitate that process.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware of the deep sense of grievance that is building up in the minds of people living in North Weald and the villages around Ongar at the fact that their section of the Central Line is being deprived of funds

which are being made available to support lines in Greater London and the Home Counties with similar problems? Will he intervene to ensure that people who are able to provide the funds get on with the job before the service dies a death of a thousand cuts?

Mr. Horam: I note the passion in the voice of my hon. Friend on this matter, and the matter is of great concern. Essex withdrew its grant for this line when the GLC took away its grant—rightly, because it is outside the GLC's territory. Hertfordshire has come back with some money. Tory-controlled Essex should take heart from that and go ahead and do something about it.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions are taking place on fresh proposals to construct a Channel Tunnel.

Mr. William Rodgers: I am not aware of any such discussions. I am certainly involved in none.

Mr. Rost: Does the Minister agree that a direct Channel rail link could assist the viability not only of British Rail but of the Continental railway system and would therefore involve less public subsidy, apart from the longer-term energy conservation considerations? Will he give an assurance that if the EEC puts forward proposals for such a direct link, even if it is only a one-rail link, he will consider it seriously and put such proposals before the House for discussion?

Mr. Rodgers: It probably would be in the interests of British Rail and Continental railways for there to be a fixed link between this country and the Continent. I am sure that this is in the minds of those responsible at British Rail. On the other hand, as I have previously made clear to the House, the Government's position has not changed. We cannot contemplate such a large increase in public expenditure at present, but were there to be any proposals from the European Community or elsewhere I would be prepared to consider them. I am sure that the House would also want to discuss them.

Mr. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend use his position in the Cabinet to press for a share of the North Sea oil profits


to go towards this very desirable infrastructure? Is he not aware that practically every trunk route survey which has taken place with regard to Europe and Britain has shown that whereas connections between the various Continental capitals are very good, we are separated from them by the sea? Will he fight more forcibly for the money to build this desirable piece of infrastructure?

Mr. Rodgers: Any expenditure on building a Channel Tunnel means that that money cannot be spent elsewhere. I could not argue that a Channel Tunnel should be at the top of the list of present priorities. However, I take my hon. Friend's point. I am sure that all those who have a direct interest in such a link will be doing research on how it can best be accomplished and will be making their views clearly known.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister clarify the position regarding the machine which was designed to dig the Channel Tunnel? We understand that the machine was up for sale. Is it still for sale or has it been withdrawn from the market?

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a bid for it, it will be acceptable for him to do so. The problem—it has been raised before in the House—is that were the construction of a Channel Tunnel to go ahead at some time, the best judgment is that that machine is not a piece of equipment which could then be used.

Roads (White Paper)

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had on the White Paper "Policy For Roads: England 1978", Cmnd. Paper No. 7132.

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had on the White Paper "Policy for Roads: England 1978", Cmnd. Paper No. 7132.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have received two communications which might be called representations.

Mr. Newton: Will the Minister accept a welcome for the White Paper's reaffirmation of the need to give greater priority to the South-East and East Anglia and also the White Paper's recognition of the

possible need for a switch from Government schemes to local authority schemes? When does he expect to translate these hopes into cash, particularly for the county of Essex?

Mr. Rodgers: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the appendix to the White Paper set out about 400 schemes, which are being assessed or reassessed in terms of priorities. As he says, we believe that in the immediate future industrial routes and those to the ports will be very important. I am prepared to be flexible if it is shown that local authorities need more money for capital spending while, on balance, I may need less.

Mr. Forman: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people in my part of Greater London will welcome the fact that the first priority in the South-East, according to the White Paper, is to be given to the completion of the M23? Will he see to it that the next priority in that area is not to build the M23 north of Hooley?

Mr. Rodgers: There is a substantial measure of agreement on that.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The Secretary of State mentioned routes to the ports and similar installations. Will he take it from me that many people in my constituency want to urge him, as I do now, to try to ensure that more of the chemicals and dangerous substances go by rail and not by road? Where this is not possible, we should like there to be regulations which ensure that the tankers and other vehicles which carry dangerous substances are maintained effectively and inspected regularly.

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend has raised this matter before in the House. I said previously and can say again that I broadly agree with him. We should use the railways as much as possible for freight, including dangerous freight. Equally, we should make sure that for the traffic which goes by road the safety regulations are strict and are properly enforced.

Car Parks (Control)

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Transport, what representations he has had from motoring organisations concerning his plans in the Transport Bill to control privately operated public car parks.

Mr. Horam: Eight organisations commented on the consultation paper on additional parking controls issued by the Department last August.

Mr. Miller: Following the discussion of the Bill in the House, has the Minister had time to reflect and is he now in a position to drop this totally unnecessary control proposed on private off-street parking?

Mr. Horam: No, not at all. We have support from the Standing Committee, and we shall go ahead on the lines indicated. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Redditch new town there are about 2,000 off-street parking spaces which are all under the control of the local authorities. We wish them to exercise all that control in other circumstances which are not so propitious.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that these controls are long overdue? New York was doing this in 1945.

Mr. Horam: Indeed. The sort of traffic measures that we have had over the last 10 or 15 years have contributed to a better quality of life in our towns and cities.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Would it not be better if the Minister considered London rather than New York? Is not the crucial point that in London, where these powers already exist, the scheme introduced by the old Labour-controlled GLC was overwhelmingly rejected by the public and was rightly scrapped by the incoming Conservative-controlled GLC? There is no justification for these extra powers, and the Government would get much more credit if they scrapped these proposals altogether.

Mr. Horam: Absolutely not. There is a party political difference over what hapened in London. The Labour Party put forward proposals which had more support than the hon. Gentleman indicates, and the Tories when they came in dropped those proposals. That by no means indicates that the Tories were right.

Railways (Catering Standards)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his introducing the inquiry into standards

in motorway service stations, he will take steps to review standards of catering on British Railways.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his introducing the inquiry into standards in motorway service stations, he will take steps to review standards of catering on British Railways.

Mr. Horam: The Railways Board has already commissioned consultants to examine various aspects of train catering and it is currently introducing experimental changes in accordance with the consultants' initial findings.

Mr. Crouch: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that, notwithstanding Mr. Peter Parker's statement that he lives with the realities of competition, if one travels from London to Liverpool it costs more than £5 to have dinner and 17p to have a cardboard cup of powdered coffee? How is it possible, with these prices, for British Rail to have made a loss of £2½ million on its catering last year? Does he not think that someone is being taken for a ride?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman will know from all the publicity that prices have been reduced on some items of British Rail catering, and that is probably very welcome. There are also changes in the menus and snacks that are available. I never have the £5 meal on British Rail, though I occasionally have a very good breakfast, which is rather expensive but of very good quality. If I want some lunch, I have a sandwich.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the Minister ask the consultants to look into two specific areas that need improvement—first, the provision of catering facilities on long-distance cross-country routes, as these are often absent, and, secondly, the absenteeism and other factors that conspire to the non-inclusion of catering facilities on inter-city trains? I am sure that he will agree that this is absolutely maddening, especially when one has scheduled one's day on the basis of having a meal on the train.

Mr. Horam: On the journey between London and Newcastle I have occasionally been in the same predicament as the hon. Gentleman has obviously been


in from time to time. I note what he says with some feeling.

Mr. Spriggs: The Question is about standards of catering, and there is no restaurant in the country that could do anything to beat what British Rail does on the route between London-Euston and Glasgow.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend's wholehearted support for British Rail catering is well known and is taken very well in some parts of the House. I have had some of the best breakfasts of my life on British Rail.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) might have been obtained if the House had seen fit to accept my Bill last week? Can he explain why some price reductions are to be found only on short-distance lines? Is he aware that coffee that has been reduced in price from 17p to 15p is to be found only on Eastern Region, on the journey to Peterborough, where the Under-Secretary lives?

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these matters is clearly comprehensive. I would not go along with his solution, which is to denationalise the catering and hand it over to private enterprise and motorway caterers, such as Trust Houses Forte. Given what Egon Ronay has said about them, I do not believe that it would be an improvement.

Mr. Beith: Is it not an abuse of the monopoly power of British Rail catering that it is not now possible to drink tea in any British Rail buffet car, because it has been replaced by a highly-priced synthetic substitute?

Mr. Horam: I shall mention that to the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Park: Is my hon. Friend aware that while the staff is providing the gorgeous breakfast that he is talking about, they rarely have anyone to spare to serve the coffee and sandwiches to which he has also referred? Is he further aware that when one makes inquiries, the reply is "We do not have the staff to do it"? What is he going to do about that?

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend might try getting coffee and sandwiches on the station beforehand.

Mr. Temple-Morris: If we can leave £5 menus and breakfasts for a moment, the Minister will be aware that it was recently announced that catering would command greater attention from the chairman himself, Mr. Peter Parker, and that, as a result, beef, chicken and salad would be added to the sandwich fillings. Has the Minister been into any snack bars on trains lately? If he has, he will know why more and more people are taking their own food on to trains.

Mr. Horam: I regularly use the snack bar at King's Cross Station, and I find it quite adequate.

British Rail and London Transport

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will invite the chairman of the British Railways Board and the chairman of London Transport to meet him together.

Mr. William Rodgers: If there is sufficient reason, yes.

Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend regard it as sufficient reason to consider the situation where London Transport trains run on British Rail lines and through British Rail stations? Will he, in particular, draw the attention of the two chairmen to conditions at East Putney station, where this occurs, and to the fact that at the station the whole thing seems to be falling between two stools? Will he ask, in particular, for passenger-operated ticket machines to be installed, at long last, at East Putney station?

Mr. Rodgers: I am not familiar with that station, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to my attention. The London Rail Advisory Committee is seeking to get a degree of co-ordination where there has, perhaps, been too little in the past, and I shall make sure that it is aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Secretary of State encourage the two chairmen to make better arrangements for British Rail season ticket holders when the train service is cancelled, so that they can use London Transport where there is a bus or Tube link?

Mr. Rodgers: That is precisely the sort of joint arrangement that the advisory


committee should be looking at. It makes good sense, and I shall draw it to the committee's attention.

Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the advisory committee has few powers and, to date, does not have a great reputation? If he sees the two chairmen together, will he point out to them that before 1947 the receipts from all rail, bus, tram and trolleybus services were pooled, and that without such a pooling system there is a clash between the revenue interests of British Rail and London Transport—a clash that is at the bottom of many of the problems that we have at present?

Mr. Rodgers: I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the powers of the advisory committee, but not his remarks about its reputation. It is a relatively new body and it has been working well. It seeks to achieve its objectives by agreement and influence, which is the only way, given the complex problems of the city. I take my hon. Friend's point about the experiences of some years ago. They have consequences which are difficult for passengers.

Road Haulage (Costs)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Transport, how much he estimates road haulage costs to have increased since February 1974; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: By about 90 per cent.

Mr. Mills: Does the Minister realise the terrible effect that these massive increases have in certain areas, such as the South-West, particularly for the consumer, the farmer and the industrialist? Does he realise that the Government cannot avoid taking some responsibility for these massive increases? Will he see that road haulers are not further clobbered in future—by the black list, for example? May we have the report of the Price Commission as quickly as possible?

Mr. Horam: I pay tribute to the road haulage industry. It has been successful in offsetting higher costs with greater efficiency. I gave the figure of 90 per cent., but the figure for increased costs per tonne-kilometre is only 15 per cent. The industry has done well in coping with these rising costs.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the juggernauts and other lorries paid a proper economic sum towards the maintenance of motorways and major roads, the costs would increase considerably? Last year it cost £80 million to maintain these roads. This is very unfair competition for the railways.

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend will be aware that, overall, lorries are meeting their full wear and tear costs, with the exception of the very heaviest lorries. As he knows, we have a programme for dealing with that.

Mr. Kershaw: Is the Minister aware that one of the components of the costs of road hauliers is the inconvenient roads, with the long delays that can result? Is he now able to announce when the decision about the Stroud inner ring road, which I was promised earlier this month, will be made?

Mr. Horam: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would try to get that question in somewhere. I cannot give him a commitment offhand, but he will be aware of the priorities that we have given in the roads White Paper to work out suitable routes for lorries.

British Road Services

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his reply in the Official Report, 5th April 1978, column 420, he will now make a statement on British Road Services.

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether, pursuant to his reply in the Official Report, Wednesday 5th April 1978, column 420, he will now make a statement on British Road Services.

Mr. William Rodgers: I understand that the NFC agreed that this year's BRS management conference should be held in Las Palmas because it was a congenial place to go to, and good value for money.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Secretary of State not consider that the Las Palmas trip to some degree tarnishes the reputation of a management board which has been very successful? Does not he further consider that on the rare occasions when


a nationalised industry feels that it has something to celebrate, it should do so in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not agree. We have to enjoy ourselves sometime. If, as the hon. Member says, British Road Services is doing a good job of work, if it is earning a substantial profit, and if the management and workers are doing a first-class job, it is better that they should have a weekend in Las Palmas than in Cardiff, for example.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the efforts that are being made in the Government by various Cabinet Ministers and by people outside to initiate a campaign to buy British? Is it not a bad start for us to hear from the Secretary of State that it is all right to buy foreign?

Mr. Rodgers: I do not agree at all. I must be firm about this. Most of us travel abroad from time to time, for good reason. It does not mean that we do not like staying at home or buying British. Large numbers of people go abroad for holidays. Good luck to them. If this helps to motivate a nationalised industry, I see nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

Mr. Norman Fowler: Surely the Secretary of State is ignoring the fact that over the last few years taxpayers have given a great deal of money to the National Freight Corporation. Would it not be better if it had a more economical conference and sought to repay some of our money?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member displays a pretty uptight attitude to this matter. If there is only a small difference in cost between going to Las Palmas and going to Cardiff, NorthWest—I know that there are other parts of Cardiff to which this consideration would not apply—I see no reason why the members of the management of BRS should not go there if, in their managerial judgment, it makes best sense.

Humber Bridge

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest estimate of the cost of the Humber Bridge.

Mr. Horam: The latest estimate by the Humber Bridge Board is just under £61·5 million. This cost includes the immediate approach roads, but not capitalised interest.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the Minister aware of the concern, which almost amounts to despair, on the south bank of the Humber at the way in which millions of pounds have been hurled in to try to satisfy this white elephant, while at the same time no progress at all has been made in completing the M180 from Brigg to the ports of Immingham and Grimsby? Will he assure the House that the Government will undertake this most important job, because Immingham is the sixth largest port in the United Kingdom and has no decent road structure? Although it is too late to stop the Humber Bridge, should we not now build the necessary roads in order to look after these two most important ports?

Mr. Horam: I take note of the despair on the south bank of the Humber. The M180 is going ahead fast. Spurs to Immingham and Grimsby will be built from the trunk road at the end. That project is making excellent progress.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the intemperate comments from the Opposition Back Bench are typical of the vendetta that is being waged by a small number of people on the south bank who still think in terms of East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire? Does he accept that the bridge will confer enormous benefits to those living on both sides of the estuary, not least people such as I, who will pay 80p to take their cars over to the old Lincolnshire—now South Humberside—thus saving 70 miles of journey via Goole? Is the Minister also aware of the invisible benefits in the form of tourism for this part of the world?

Mr. Horam: I agree that the Humber Bridge will be a major national asset. I hope that it will bring some harmony to the relationship between the north and south banks of the Humber.

Sir P. Bryan: Will the Under-Secretary of State bear in mind the effect that the new Humber Bridge traffic will have on the trunk roads north of the river and the consequential need for a Market Weighton bypass?

Mr. Horam: I note that point. The hon. Member will be aware from a previous Question Time that we are looking at this matter closely. We hope to come to some clear conclusions when the Humber Bridge is completed.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my hon. Friend ensure that until the bridge is opened the ferry service will continue? Is he aware that the "Lincolnshire Castle" has been laid off? Does he agree that it should be brought back into service? Is he aware that a clause in the Humber Bridge Act provides for the cost to be met in this situation? Should not this be done? My constituents should have some type of service until other decisions are taken after the bridge is opened.

Mr. Horam: This is a matter for British Rail. Before it can close down a ferry service it must meet objections. There might be a public inquiry, and my hon. Friend might have a say in it. He is well protected.

Mr. Brotherton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity under Standing Order No. 1.

Metrication

Mr. Mawby: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made on his consultations preparatory to a change-over from miles to kilometres.

Mr. William Rodgers: None, Sir. As I have previously told the House, I am planning no such consultations in the near future.

Mr. Mawby: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Has he estimated the cost of changing speed limit and information signs? Has he taken into account the fact that although the ordinary motorist here understands what the sign "30" means, if there were to be a sign "50" the letters "km", at least, would have to be included? In view of that, would it not be best to leave the whole thing alone?

Mr. Rodgers: I am one of those who enjoy kilometres abroad and miles in the United Kingdom. That might be the view of the House. I am not looking into the detailed matters to which the hon. Mem-

ber rightly refers because it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to do so, at least until after the consultation has taken place.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that millions of ordinary British people also enjoy kilometres abroad but prefer miles at home? Has he considered what effect such a change could have on the export of cars to Australia, the United States, New Zealand and many other parts of the world? Could not this have a deleterious effect? Does he agree that we should not sacrifice everything in response to every demand from the Common Market Commission?

Mr. Rodgers: We should adopt a reasonably relaxed approach to this matter. I have expressed my preference and I think that I know the preference of most hon. Members, but we must recognise that other people, particularly the younger generation, who are not as stuffy about such matters as some of us tend to be, may look at it differently. We can look at this in due course. There is no need to bother about it today.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Secretary of State agree that those of us who were in favour of our entry to the European Community are, nevertheless, distressed that on many vital English matters we have to change our old names and go in for these new-fangled names from the Continent? Surely we want to keep our old English mile.

Mr. Rodgers: I know that many people want to keep our old English everything. That does not mean that we should never change. But we need not worry about it too much at the moment. The consultations have not begun, and at the end of the day Parliament will decide.

Tachographs

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest position on tachographs.

Mr. William Rodgers: I have nothing to add to what I told the House on 5th and 14th April.

Mr. Marten: If the European Court should rule that we should have tachographs and if we refuse to have them,


what is the court's ultimate sanction? Shall we see a type of Euro-tipstaff coming here, like Cromwell, and arresting the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member has put a fearful thought in my mind—a thought that was not previously there. But I do not think that we need form our final view of the state of affairs that will prevail until the European Court has pronounced. I have as yet received no firm indication that a reference has been made to the European Court by the Commission. I have seen Press reports to that effect, but this has not yet been confirmed.

Mr. Madden: Is the Secretary of State aware that even when one finds anyone who voted in favour of Britain's remaining a member of the Common Market, he is rapidly becoming sick to death with the meddling and interference of the Common Market in our milk supplies, in whether or not we keep the British passport, in drivers' hours, in miles, and in many other matters? Will he ensure that the "spy in the cab" is not achieved by the meddling bureaucrats of Brussels?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend uses harsh language. I think that inevitably the process of being members of the Community has brought problems and even surprises, including those of us who were very much in favour of Britain's joining the Community and remaining there. I can only say that, on the one hand, my own vision is not measured in axle weights, and, on the other hand, that I do not think that the long-term interests of this country will be affected by the sort of pinpricks which I know irritate us all when they come from Brussels from time to time.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Before the Secretary of State is hauled away in irons to the European Court, will he tell us, by way of a fond farewell, whether he will study what the Road Haulage Association had to say about the value of voluntary agreements? What will he do to encourage this very sensible way forward?

Mr. Rodgers: I shall certainly study that. I ought to make it quite clear that I am happy to see voluntary agreements about the use of tachographs. If both sides of the industry want to use them, why should they not do so if they believe

that they are an aid to productivity? What is at issue is the compulsory use of tachographs, to which a number of people take strong exception.

M25 (Maple Cross—M40)

Mr. Dodsworth: asked the Secretary of State for Transport, in the light of recent fatalities, if he will now ensure that the Maple Cross-M40 section of the M25 motorway is constructed as soon as possible in order to alleviate the traffic conditions in Maple Cross; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Horam: The recent White Paper "Policy for Roads" confirms that completion of the M25 remains a top priority. As I said in reply to the hon. Member on 24th April, construction of the whole of the section between Heathrow Airport Spur and Maple Cross is expected to start in the period 1981–83.

Mr. Dodsworth: Will the Under-Secretary indicate whether he will look at the reprogramming of different sections of this north orbital route, particularly in view of the fact that the existing section of road is funnelling traffic into the Maple Cross area and there is an urgent need for remedial works to alleviate the suffering of the residents, who are likely to undergo it for some considerable time?

Mr. Horam: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I thik that the objective in the case of the M25 is to get ahead with all sections as fast as possible, and we shall carry on doing that.

British Railways (Road Transport)

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement of his policy concerning the operation of road transport by British Railways.

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement of his policy concerning the operation of road transport by British Railways.

Mr. Horam: Our policy is that British Rail should be able to use the Freightliners collection and delivery vehicles after transfer, as they are used now by the National Freight Corporation. The


other restrictions on the use of road transport by British Rail will continue.

Mr. Smith: Following the withdrawal of the Government's amendment in the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill, will the Under-Secretary give an undertaking that, following what he has just said, British Rail's road haulage activities will be confined to those Freightliners activities which involve delivery and collection?

Mr. Horam: Indeed; that is absolutely our objective.

Mr. Fox: Is the Minister aware that the road haulage industry is still highly suspicious of a Government and party that still have nationalisation in their programme? Therefore, will he be far more specific about the assurance that he has just given, because the industry feels that here is a move to switch traffic from the private sector of the haulage industry to an extended fleet owned under the nationalised sector?

Mr. Horam: I can be absolutely specific. It is no part of our intention to do what the hon. Member has just said. The intention is perfectly plain. It is to allow Freightliners to carry on in the future as it has in the past. That is all.

Mr. Spearing: Is it not a fact that, apart from the Freightliners road vehicles and the express parcels road vehicles, British Rail has now no road vehicles for the collection of what used to be ordinary goods traffic? As these vehicles were transferred to National Carriers, which now uses rail depots near to the railway but does not always use railway vehicles, will my hon. Friend see Sir Daniel Pettit to ascertain whether it is possible to put back on rail a lot of the traffic that was lost when the changes were made?

Mr. Horam: I understand my hon. Friend's objective, which is to get more traffic on to rail, and we are attempting to do that in various ways.

Mr. Fry: Will the Under-Secretary remember the drubbing that he took in Standing Committee on this point? Before we get the Government's second thoughts on this matter, will he at least make sure that he and his right hon. Friend under-

stand what their own civil servants are proposing in this respect?

Mr. Horam: I do not think that any of my hon. Friends who served on that Committee would agree that I got a drubbing there. Indeed, the drubbings that we managed to hand out to the Opposition from time to time in that Committee were far more numerous. There was only one vote, I think, during the entire proceedings. That was the first vote, and it was an accident. None the less. I think that we came through it very satisfactorily.

Road Haulage (Nationalisation)

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria he intends to adopt in his plans to extend public ownership in road haulage.

Mr. William Rodgers: The public interest, as always.

Mr. Morrison: Will the Secretary of State tell the House which sector of the road haulage industry he expects to be more profitable and to have better industrial relations under public ownership as compared with private ownership?

Mr. Rodgers: If this is the implication of the hon. Member's Question, I should not have thought that the private sector of road haulage has had an unimpaired reputation in industrial relations or in any other field. I am very glad to say that for the most part it has been a success and has been contributing usefully to the health of the country. The same is true of, for example, British Road Services—notorious for holidays in Las Palmas.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that successive Labour Party conferences have called for the nationalisation of road haulage companies with five or more vehicles specifically so that the drivers will work proper hours and the lorries will be properly serviced?

Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the very high standards which the public sector has set and to the extent to which it has been a pace-setter in good working practices, and I think that that is absolutely right. That is why I hope that we shall be able to build—my hon. Friend rightly draws


my attention to our commitment in this direction—upon the part of the road haulage industry which is already nationalised.

Lorries (Reliability and Safety)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the mechanical reliability and safety of heavy vehicles from Europe travelling on British roads; and whether checks for reliability of these vehicles are adequate.

Mr. Horam: Checks of foreign vehicles using British roads indicate that they are generally in a satisfactory mechanical condition. We are satisfied that within the manpower resources available the scope and frequency of checks are adequate.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that there is a general belief based on a certain amount of experience that many of the heavy vehicles coming in are overloaded? How can we deal with this problem in terms of taking action against their drivers and imposing fines? Does the Minister know about what happened in Northamptonshire recently, when several of them were stopped? May we have some quick method of getting them to the courts and getting action?

Mr. Horam: I know about what happened in Northamptonshire recently. It was a very useful exercise. Unfortunately, none of the lorries stopped for being overloaded or for any other fault was foreign, apart from one, which was from Eire, and none was from the Continent. Therefore, that example does not exactly back up the hon. Member's point. However, the answer to the hon. Member's first point about what we do to prevent overloaded foreign lorries from going about their business is that we have a system of stopping them for spot checks at ports, and this works pretty well on the whole.

Mr. John Ellis: Will my hon. Friend take on board the point that there is a problem here, in that lorry drivers and lorry owners picking up containers at ports have no way of knowing the weight of the containers? In these circumstances, would it not be more sensible to go to the docks and to check the weight of the containers? If a member of my union saw a notice saying "This

container is overweight", he would not move it. To be prosecuted and to lose one's licence—with the same consideration applying to the owner of the vehicle—when there is no way of knowing the weight of what is in the container is manifestly unfair.

Mr. Horam: As my hon. Friend knows from the debate on the Transport Bill, this does not happen. There is no loss of licence if it is shown that a driver did not know what was in the container that he picked up. Rightly, the law protects the lorry driver in those circumstances. However, I take my hon. Friend's point, and that of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), that we need to take a careful look at our checking facilities in ports.

Commuter Services

Mr. Skeet: asked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had about the statement he issued jointly with the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection on commuters.

Mr. William Rodgers: None, Sir.

Mr. Skeet: Is the Minister aware that he has been milking the commuters in the South-East and London for a long time and that the service to Bedford has been deplorable, particularly for its state of disrepair? Is he prepared to make certain concessions, particularly in view of the report of the Price Commission? Is he also prepared to bear in mind that now that he is in the Cabinet he can get further concessions for commuters—for example, deductions against income tax for this purpose?

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman has more to be pleased about than some hon. Members, considering the improvements in the services between St. Pancras and Bedford which he knows are taking place. As he rightly said, the Price Commission has looked at the whole problem of commuter fares and the difficulty of deciding how much should be raised in revenue, and therefore in fares, and how much should come, in effect, from the taxpayer. It has made some useful recommendations, and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and I have welcomed its report. I am sure that British Rail is more anxious than


ever before both to improve the comfort and convenience of commuter services and to explain why they cost a great deal of money.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Potatoes) Order 1978 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Snape.]

TRADES UNIONS (FREEDOM OF POLITICAL ASSOCIATION)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent a registered trade union from expelling a member from membership of the union for political reasons.
I have been in the House for nearly eight years, and this is the first time that I have presented a Ten-Minute Bill. Recent moves by three separate unions in different circumstances have caused me to take this step.
In an industry with a closed shop, if union membership is removed from someone for political reasons, that person is automatically deprived of his or her employment. I believe this to be unacceptable and I have support for that view from no less a person than the Prime Minister. In answer to a Question from me on 4th April, he said:
I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that I would deplore utterly, and would not find it at all acceptable, that people should be dismissed from their employment because of their political views, however objectionable they may be."—[Official Report, 4th April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 234.]
The election yesterday of Mr. Duffy on a secret postal ballot justifies one proposal which my party believes should be encouraged, if necessary by legislation—allowing the State to fund postal ballots for trade unions. I believe that my modest proposal today is another small attempt to seek a change which is needed and which would be supported by most active trade unionists.
If the Bill is opposed today, no doubt we shall hear howls from Labour Members below the Gangway about "union-bashing", "Grunwick", "George Ward" and "confrontation". None of those things is in my Bill. It relates instead to three specific events which have caused me concern.
The first is the case of the National Union of Railwaymen and the National Front. I believe that the National Front is an obnoxious organisation, but so long as it is legal, it is legal. The attempt to expel members from the NUR for their active support of the National Front is as bad—[Interruption.] I seek your protection, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to proceed with my speech.
I believe that the idea of expelling people from the NUR and therefore from their jobs solely for participation in politics, however obnoxious, is itself an obnoxious act. People would be deprived of their livelihood on the railways and if they were members of, say, the NUR, they might find it difficult ever to get another job.
I have support for this view from no less a person than the Secretary of State for Transport. When I raised the subject of political expulsions from the NUR, the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 11th April:
it is a dangerous principle for anyone to be dismissed from his employment because of his political views. This would be quite wrong.
So at least two members of the Cabinet are on my side.
I understand that British Rail's attitude is that it would not sack a person, even if he were expelled from the union, if he had been unreasonably excluded from the union. But no one can tell me who is to be the arbiter of what is unreasonable.
The second union which has indulged in political expulsion is the National Union of Journalists. Mr. Donny MacLeod of Pebble Mill has been kicked out of the NUJ. His crime in its eyes is "providing help and endorsement" to the D. C. Thomson publishing group of Dundee. He appeared in a television commercial for a company which the NUJ does not like—a company which produces such hot political publications as Beano and Hotspur.
There is as yet no closed shop in the BBC, so Mr. MacLeod is still able to work. However, I understand that if he had been employed by ITV, he would by now have found his employment jeopardised. Political expulsions of journalists, of course, amount to political censorship.
The third union is ASTMS. Here I must declare a personal interest, because Mr. Clive Jenkins is actively seeking to expel me and now a number of my parliamentary colleagues from his union. In a letter to me from the ASTMS head office on 13th April, the supervisor of the records department, a gentleman called Bill Kingston-Splatt—a name to make the Tolpuddle martyrs' blood

course quickly through their veins—wrote to me:
I also gather that you have been told by Mr. Jenkins that the Union does not wish to have you as a member anyway.
The fact is that Mr. Jenkins has arrogated to himself his own opinion and proferred it on behalf of his entire membership.
I wish to tell Obersturmbahnfuhrer Jenkins that ASTMS is not his property and that his wish to close down the London bank staff branch of ASTMS and therefore to deprive a number of my colleagues of union membership is a wholly unacceptable political decision taken supposedly in the name of democratic unionism. He may dislike my table manners or my choice of claret, although I suspect that he dislikes my politics. I think that he is behaving like the General Amin of the British trade union movement.
This attempt to expel people for political reasons should be challenged in the courts. People kicked out of their unions for political reasons can easily finish up as industrial gipsies, wandering around trying to find a job in some organisation which does not have a closed shop. If the closed shop goes on extending its tentacles throughout British industry, that could mean a serious situation for people who have offended the union leadership. Where do they stand under Bridlington?
Trade union affairs, like any other aspects of human endeavour, can give rise to grave misunderstandings when there is an abuse of power by the few which brings disrepute on the majority. I make clear my position—I am a supporter of democratic trade unionism, but some union leaders are, and know that they are, more powerful than the industrial barons of the past. Workers are often more frightened of offending their shop steward than of upsetting their boss.
Whereas a union should be a bastion of liberty, in many cases it is being used as a weapon of fear against individuals and their rights. The Bill seeks merely to control excesses or abuses of power. It is not designed to give rise to that overworked word "confrontation", which I suspect will be used more often in the next election by more Cabinet Ministers—including the Home Secretary,


Mr. Speaker, who is standing next to you—than any other word.
Political explusion is a threat to liberty. I have quoted the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport. Perhaps I may end by quoting some words written in the foreword to a book entitled "The Martyr of Tolpuddle" published in 1934. They were written by the then Chairman of the TUC, Andrew Conley. Referring to the Tolpuddle labourers, he said:
They would not be persuaded … into a betrayal of their principles nor coerced by the most vindictive punishment.
I doubt that Mr. Conley could have foreseen that those words would be used in the defence of individual trade unionists against abuse of power by unions. I therefore hope that the NUR, the NUJ and ASTMS will take note that Parliament will not tolerate people being deprived of their rights or their jobs for their political views—however odd or nasty or sordid some may think those views to be.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I wish that in referring to D. C. Thomson the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) had extended his reading beyond the Dandy and Beano. If he had, he might understand rather more clearly why journalists are so hostile to the activities of the D. C. Thomson Press, reasons which go back, I think, as far as 40 years. The behaviour of that organisation is contrary to the spirit of existing law, but I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to understand that.
I think that we all support the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4th April that no one should be dismissed from his or her job because of his or her political views. It is a simple proposition on which there should be unanimity.
I hope, too, but with less confidence, that the House will support the proposition that no one should be debarred from a job because of his political views. Conservative Members seem not to have heard of a thing called the black list, which is used widely throughout this country by employers, and has been used for generations. My own father was a vic-

tim of it several times during his working life. My family know about the black list. My family know about being disbarred from work because of one's political views. But I have never heard one Member of the Conservative Party complain about the use of black lists of that sort. The Conservatives' concern for individual rights is a wee bit partial, to say the least.
The hon. Gentleman's demand for legislation is pointless, because the Trades Union Congress has already set up an independent review body to deal with such cases, and for closed shop situations it has a legally qualified chairman, who has been appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment and with the chairman of ACAS.
In any case, there are common law rights on which individuals can rely and which the courts will and do enforce. The unions' rules books must be lawful and must conform to conventional notions of natural justice in their administration. Above all, it is for the members of each trade union to decide who shall be members of their union, what policies it will follow, and what behaviour they as members will accept as behaviour which is conducive to the achievement of the union's policies and is in the union's interests. At the same time, they can object to that type of behaviour which in their view damages the union's interests and the fulfilment of its stated purposes. That is their clear right as members of a voluntary association.
Should the railwaymen or the members of any other union adopt rules for administrative procedures which violate natural justice, the courts can be relied upon to provide a remedy, if all of the internal appeal procedures which exist within most British trade unions, and certainly within the TUC, are proved to be inadequate.
The House has already considered exhaustively, during the passage of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, the question that is being raised this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman knows that very well.
Furthermore, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's quotation of the alleged case of the NUR, the House knows that he is aware of the statement made by the


union's general secretary to a Conservative gathering on 10th April. Mr. Weighell said:
Contrary to what the papers say, the intention is not to expel members from the union, or get them sacked, simply because they are misguided enough to become members of the National Front.
What we want to tackle is their threat to industrial peace by spreading racialist literature, holding racialist meetings and acting contrary to the basic rules of the NUR. We have many hundreds of coloured workers in the railways working amicably with their fellow men and women.
It seems that the hon. Gentleman wants those amicable relationships subverted. We might ask ourselves why. Mr. Weighell went on:
If they
—the racists—
respect our rules and industrial practices and do nothing to harm our industry, they have nothing to fear, irrespective of what party they belong to and what their personal views are … There is no danger of anyone being deprived of his rights because he belongs to any particular political party. Members of the NUR, we consider, have the most democratic system of any trade union in the country.
Those of us who know something about the trade union movement know that the basic principles of trade union administration in this country are democratic.
So why has the hon. Gentleman raised the matter at all, given that he knows of all these things? It is clearly a simple attempt by an ignorant bigot—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No one's argument is advanced by personal abuse. The hon. Gentleman must give his reasons for opposing the introduction of the Bill. Personal abuse is never part of our way of life. At least, I try for it not to be.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: It is not customary to interrupt either speaker in a Ten-Minute Bill debate, so I shall take the point of order afterwards.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking the point of order now. I will wait.

Mr. Ridley: With great respect—

Mr. Speaker: I warn the hon. Gentleman that unless he resumes his seat he will be forcing me into further action which I do not wish to take.

Mr. Litterick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Do something decent for once.

Mr. Litterick: Having examined the hon. Gentleman's alleged arguments, I believe that it is quite legitimate for me to attempt to characterise the arguments he has put forward. It also seems to me quite legitimate at least to speculate out loud as to his motives. I suggest that they spring from a basic hostility towards trade unions.

Mr. Adley: I am a member of a trade union.

Mr. Litterick: Any stick that such people can use to beat the trade unions with will do, whether or not it approximates to the truth. They are not interested in the truth. Their concern for individual rights, which the hon. Gentleman alleges is the basis of his argument, is extremely biased, as they have never expressed any concern about the use of black lists by employers.
In other words, not only is the motion superfluous, for the reasons I have already given, but it is mischievous and tendentious, based on ignorance, and is pointless bigotry. Therefore, the House should oppose and reject the motion.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I introduced a Ten-Minute Bill on 8th March you accepted a point of order that I had brought into the Chamber a Dispatch Box, and I of course naturally accepted your view that it would be right for the Dispatch Box to be removed from the Chamber.
I sought simply on this occasion to raise a point of order during the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) to the effect that his charging my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) with being an ignorant bigot was unacceptable as parliamentary language.
All that I rose to seek, Mr. Speaker, was that you should ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the expression "ignorant bigot" as being unjustified and unparliamentary. I hope that you will now concede that I have a right to ask that you should do such a thing.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to remind me of 8th March, when a point of order was raised about the Dispatch Box. It is normally our custom not to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman is quite correct in drawing my attention to the fact that I allowed a point of order then. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because he was quite right to bear in mind that he had been pulled up on a point of order, and any hon. Member is allowed to draw that to the attention of the Chair. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that apology.
Now to the language used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick). If we descend to that language, the reputation of this House will descend as well. I think that the hon. Member will be well advised to withdraw the words "ignorant bigot". He will be

acting in accordance with parliamentary standards if he will do so.

Mr. Litterick: Having proved beyond any doubt at all, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not asking for another speech. I am asking for the hon. Gentleman's co-operation in withdrawing a term that is offensive in the view of the whole House, I should imagine.

Mr. Litterick: Which word, Mr. Speaker—ignorant or bigot?

Mr. Speaker: Ignorant bigot. I am not addressing the hon. Gentleman. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to co-operate.

Mr. Litterick: So be it.

Mr. Speaker: The House understands that that is a withdrawal.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 181.

Division No. 194]
AYES
[3.52 p.m.


Adley Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, David (Guildford)


Alison, Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Farr, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Awdry, Daniel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Banks, Robert
Forman, Nigel
Jessel, Toby


Beith, A. J.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Kimball, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Freud, Clement
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter
Knox, David


Bottomley, Peter
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Luce, Richard


Brittan, Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan
Macfarlane, Neil


Brooke, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John


Brotherton, Michael
Goodhew, victor
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Neil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mates, Michael


Buck, Antony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mather, Carol


Budgen, Nick
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray


Bulmer, Esmond
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Burden, F. A.
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Molyneaux, James


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus


Corrie, John
Hannam, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Durant, Tony
Hooson, Emlyn
Nott, John


Dykes, Hugh
Hordern, Peter
Page, John (Harrow West)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)




Page, Richard (Workington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Pardoe, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Parkinson, Cecil
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin
Wakeham, John


Penhaligon, David
Shersby, Michael
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Silvester, Fred
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Walters, Dennis


Raison, Timothy
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Rhodes, James R.
Spence, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stainton, Keith
Younger, Hon George


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stokes, John



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. R. A. McCrindle and


Royle, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Ivan Lawrence.


Sainsbury, Tim
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Graham, Ted
Padley, Walter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Palmer, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Grant, John (Islington C)
Park, George


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce
Parker, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hardy, Peter
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bates, Alf
Harper, Joseph
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Price, William (Rugby)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Radice, Giles


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Horam, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Huckfield, Les
Robinson, Geoffrey


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Buchanan, Richard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rowlands, Ted


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ryman, John


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor
Sever, John


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cartwright, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Clemitson, Ivor
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Julius


Coleman, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Cowans, Harry
Lamborn, Harry
Stallard, A. W.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamond, James
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Stoddart, David


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Dalyell, Tam
Litterick, Tom
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davidson, Arthur
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)


Deakins, Eric
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maclennan, Robert
Tomlinson, John


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin
Tuck, Raphael


Doig, Peter
Madden, Max
Urwin, T. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.



Eadie, Alex
Marks, Kenneth
Watkins, David


Edge, Geoff
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
White, James (Pollock)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Whitehead, Philip


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Whitlock, William


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, John (Newton)
Mendelson, John
Willams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Flannery, Martin
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Austin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Woodall, Alec


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick



Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


George, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Mr. Ron Lewis and


Golding, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Doug Hoyle.


Gould, Bryan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Michael Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you help the House a little further with regard to the ruling which you gave just before the Division? If my memory serves me right, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) did not call the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) "ignorant bigot". He said that the Bill was based on ignorance and bigotry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, he did not."] I remember an occasion when the late Sir Winston Churchill accused Mr. Attlee's Government of tyranny, conceit and incompetence. Everyone knew that it was nonsense, but no one suggested that it was out of order.
May I submit, very respectfully, that if we are too nice in which words we may or may not use, our debates will lose a certain robustness? We all know that there is a polite parliamentary equivalent for the forbidden word "lie". Can you help us? What words do we use when we are talking about an hon. Member who is an ignorant bigot?

Mr. Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I perhaps save you embarrassment by saying that I would far rather be insulted than praised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick)?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) is one of the most senior Members of the House. He may have misheard the hon. Member for Selly Oak. He did not, what I call,

"attack a party". He said "an ignorant bigot". There is a world of difference between that and saying that the Opposition or Government party are this, that or the other. We have all heard it over the years.
I remind the House that the English language is a very rich language. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to provide me with the necessary words if I gave him 10 minutes in the Library.

WALES BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Ordered,
That the Report [27th April] of the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in their Resolution.—[Mr. Foot.]
put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee), and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That proceedings on Consideration of the Wales Bill, as amended, shall be brought to a conclusion at 11 p.m. on the first of the two days which, under the Order [16th November] and the Resolution of the Business Committee agreed to by the House on 1st March, are given to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, considered.

4.7 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you notice. I am very glad to see the Leader of the House in his place. Last Thursday, after this week's business had been announced, I asked him to postpone the start of the Report Stage of the Wales Bill as there was not enough time following the end of the Committee Stage—which happened late last Wednesday night—for hon. Members to draft and table amendments for Report Stage.
That task could not be started until we had a printed copy of the Wales Bill, as amended in Committee. We did not have that until 3 o'cock last Thursday afternoon. Also, before drafting one's amendments, it is preferable—I agree, not vital—to see the Government amendments which are put down. If one can see the Government amendments first, it may stop one from cluttering up the Amendment Paper with unnecessary amendments of one's own.
We got the Bill at three o'clock on Thursday afternoon. But the Government amendments were not available until Friday morning. Speaking for myself, and perhaps for other right hon. and hon. Members, I was committed to being in my constituency on Friday. I had to leave on Friday morning for my constituency where I had to attend a meeting of a local government committee of which I am a co-opted member. The date of that meeting had been fixed several months before.
I drafted my amendments on the train on Friday with a copy of the Bill—but without the Government amendments—in front of me. I checked the drafts on Friday evening and posted them on Saturday. They reached the Public Bill Office only yesterday morning. Therefore, they appear starred on today's amendment paper.
In accordance with the usual practice you, Mr. Speaker, have not selected them. I make no complaint about that. I quite

understand the position that you are in. But I must say in passing that there have been occasions when the House has been pressed so hard on the timetable that the Chair has selected starred amendments. However, on this occasion, I think that even if you had selected my starred amendments they probably would not have been reached.
On the Amendment Paper are seven new clauses, including one Government new clause, and 123 amendments, including no fewer than 36 Government amendments, many of which we welcome. In the short time available to you since yesterday morning—more especially, this morning—first your advisers, and then you, must have had a very hectic as well as difficult task. I shall come to that again later. You have done your task and have selected for consideration five new clauses, including the Government new clause, and 104 amendments, including all the 36 Government amendments, which are more or less automatic.
The important thing is that your selection, Mr. Speaker, gives rise to 59 separate discussions many of which will involve debates on major matters affecting the future of Wales.
After the Leader of the House made his business statement last week he said:
I fully accept that there is only a brief interval between the passage of Committee stage and proceedings to the Report stage next week.
I interpolate there that the interval was six clear days including only three working days. This compares with a period of at least 14 days which is recommended by the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation for any Bill that is long or complex. The Wales Bill is certainly long—85 pages—and is so complex that it recasts the Government of Wales for the first time in 450 years.
The Leader of the House went on:
But I believe that when the House deals with the Bill it will see that that is satisfactory.
How can it be satisfactory? A total of 59 separate matters must be considered in one day. Some of these matters are most important. The Leader of the House then said:
The second day will take place somewhat later.
We had been discussing the Report stage up to then, and I assumed that we might have a second day for the Report stage,


let alone Third Reading. But the Business Committee met shortly after that and decided that with only two days available altogether, one day should be for Report and one for Third Reading.
The Leader of the House then tried to pour a bit of oil on obviously troubled waters when he said:
I hope that the House will recognise that this is the proper way to proceed."—[Official Report, 27th April 1978; Vol. 948. c. 1643.]
I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, knowing the limitations of your powers in this matter to consider the very serious situation that has arisen. I contend that it is serious on three grounds. The first is that the position in which we are placed is entirely contrary to the spirit of our rules of order and our usual practice and procedure.
The second is that Members have been placed under unwarranted and unnecessary pressure of time for drafting and putting forward their amendments. Added to this is the fact that there is an acute shortage of time for considering the amendments that have been selected.
The third immediately concerns your own duties, Mr. Speaker. What has been done makes a mockery of your difficult and elaborate process of selection. If 59 matters of this kind are to be discussed in only one day everyone knows that with the best will in the world on the part of those who oppose the Bill on both sides of the House, only a very small proportion of the 59 matters will be discussed adequately or even reached.
Therefore, for these three reasons I believe that the methods used by the Leader of the House are not only an abuse of our procedure but they reveal a contempt for the ancient and honourable relationship which exists between the people of England and Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: In considering what has been posed so ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), I ask you Mr. Speaker to take account of the harsh combination of circumstances in this matter.
First of all, we have the determination of the Leader of the House and the Government to force so much through in such a limited time. Secondly, there have been delays in the publication

of parliamentary papers. Third, a Bank Holiday came in the middle of the period and exacerbated the problem. Fourth there has been difficulty ensuing for Members because of the limited time between the completion of the Committee stage on Thursday and the Report stage today, bearing in mind the weekend, the non-collection of post on Sundays and the Bank Holiday. This has meant that any amendments in the post could not reach the House until Tuesday which places hon. Members and you, Mr. Speaker, in an intolerable position.
In these circumstances the Government should have acted with magnanimity, taken a broader view of things and allocated more time than they otherwise would have done.

Mr. Ian Gow: On Thursday last week the Leader of the House, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) gave an assurance to the House in these terms:
Most of the Govenment amendments will be put on the Order Paper today."—[Official Report, 27th April 1978; Vol. 948, c. 1649.]
If this is not a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Leader of the House through you how many Government new clauses and how many Government amendments met that undertaking which he gave last Thursday? Were there any that were not put down until Friday?

Mr. Francis Pym: It is within the knowledge of every hon. Member of the House that the facts that have been stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and my other hon. Friends are accurate. The very short interval between the conclusion of the Committee stage and the Report stage and the problems that we faced last weekend are facts.
In a sense it is almost an insult to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire because he was invited some years ago to prepare a report on the preparation of legislation. He and his distinguished colleagues prepared an extremely important report, but so far from the Government taking any notice of it, it appears that in their handling of this Bill they have positively flouted it The way in which they have handled the Wales Bill is an insult.
Out of 84 clauses and 12 schedules that existed in the original Bil, we debated in Committee only 16 clauses and two schedules. That means that 68 clauses and 10 schedules were never debated at all. We now find that we have only one day to take the whole of the Report stage.
We did not vote against the motion of the Business Committee because we wanted to save time. Nor did I make any counter proposals to the Business Committee to the Government's proposals to take only one day because I thought that we would have plenty of time for Third Reading. There is no way that a Report stage and Third Reading can be debated on a sensible and responsible basis in the course of two days only.
This is a parliamentary scandal. We are being asked to put this Bill through virtually undebated in the course of this Session of Parliament. This could have been remedied if all the time that was devoted to the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill had been devoted to the Scotland Bill alone. Then, if the Government were still in office and if they were so inclined to do this for Wales also, they could have introduced the Wales Bill in another Session. This would have been one way in which more time could have been given to the Scotland Bill.
Of course we as an Opposition are not faced with this decision. But the fact remains that the Government have forced this guillotine through more fiercely and more constrictively than any other guillotine at any time on any Bill—

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): What about the European Communities Bill?

Mr. Pym: The Government use the European Communities Bill as their one alibi which they always quote. But I must point out that every clause of that Bill was debated. There were only 12 clauses and every single one was discussed. In the whole of the Wales Bill only 16 clauses were debated. That is not the way to conduct a constitutional change of this kind. There is no precedent for a guillotine of this kind on a Bill as far reaching as this. Parliament should appreciate what is being done. What is being done is neither parliamentary nor democratic. The Government are faking

the attitude "We are the masters now" and it is an absolute scandal.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If more time had been found for the Scotland Bill, and had the time we have spent on the Wales Bill been devoted to the Scotland Bill, nothing would have happened other than that more manholes would have been found, as indeed the Lords are now finding. It just goes to show how unworkable is the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with concern and careful interest to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), and the hon. Members for Barry (Sir R. Gower), Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). They will understand that I am bound by the rules of the House. It is impossible for me to rule on the spirit of our rules, although I try to interpret them as generously as I can when it lies within my power.
Today, the amendments have been selected. There are a large number of such amendments, and it is not for me to comment on the points made about the number that are likely to be discussed.

New Clause No. 1

COMMENCEMENT

'(1) The preceding provisions of this Act shall not come into operation until such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.

(2) Different days may be appointed under this section for different provisions of this Act and for different purposes of the same provision.

(3) An order under this section may contain such transitional and supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient, including provision for expenses to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament.

(4) The first order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The clause arises because Clause 82 of the Bill was defeated in the clause stand part debate. The House will recall that when that clause was defeated there was


a combination of disparate interests which led to the Committee reaching that conclusion. However, the result of the deletion of Clause 82, as it then was, of the Bill would be that devolution would come into effect in Wales immediately on Royal Assent, thus requiring devolved subjects to be handed over to a non-existent Assembly. That clearly would be nonsense.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Assuming that the Government win the Third Reading vote.

Mr. Smith: The Opposition are making remarks about Third Reading. We shall have to await that situation. I see no ground for their unfounded confidence in that respect. We understand that the Conservative Party does not favour any devolution for Wales. But I do not think that it would dissent from the proposition that, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, a referendum should be held to ascertain the views of the Welsh people before devolution is implemented. I understood that the Conservatives had at least confirmed, if not revealed, that policy in the debates in Committee.
Without sensible commencement provisions, the holding of a referendum before the implementation of this legislation would not be possible. The Government have tabled New Clause No. 1 to repair the damage that was inflicted, perhaps accidentally, in Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That was the effect of the vote that was cast. It cast out all the commencement provisions, and I am drawing that situation to the attention of the House by way of explanation.
I wish to draw attention to subsection (4) of the new clause, which provides the usual affirmative resolution procedure for the first commencement order. This replaces the earlier proposal which was in the Bill in Committee, which was the subject of a certain amount of mild criticism and which applied the special affirmative resolution procedure prescribed in Clause 71. The Government thought it right to make this change in the light of the views which have been expressed. For the sake of consistency we shall be moving a later amendment, No. 45, to make a similar change in subsection (3) of Clause 80 which deals with the referendum.
I hope that the House will find my explanation reasonable. It is necessary

to make the Bill sensible, and we are accepting the criticism that was made by the Opposition.

Mr. Pym: The Minister tried to continue the impression of confusion which existed following the defeat of the original Clause 82. When that provision was defeated, a certain amount of guidance was given to the effect that there was some confusion and nobody knew what was being done. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): Nonsense.

Mr. Pym: That is true, and it is no use the Under-Secretary of State for Wales saying otherwise. Our criticism of the original Clause 82 was confined to the heinous provisions regarding the House of Lords and the power which was to be taken in those provisions for this House to be able to overrule the House of Lords. We were totally opposed to that step.
Having succeeded in what I grant was a strange alliance in knocking out the original clause, it is now before the House in an amended form. It would be churlish of me not to welcome it, because it meets the point that we put forward. We welcome Amendment No. 45 because it takes the provisions to which we had such strong objection out of what is now Clause 80. We regard that as a right and proper change.
Clause 71, as it now is, which empowers this House to overrule another place, now applies only to the override powers in Clauses 34 and 35. All the other subordinate legislation provided for in the Bill can now be proceeded with in the normal way. For Clauses 34 and 35 alone, however, the Bill still takes power to enable this House to overrule another place. We think that that is wrong because it envisages a situation in which the Government may try to oppose the views both of the elected Assembly in Wales and of the House of Lords It may seem an unlikely set of circumstances, but those are the circumstances envisaged.
The situation in regard to Clause 35 is even more undesirable. Under those provisions the Secretary of State could, if he wished to do so, use his party majority in the Commons to nullify a


subordinate instrument legally passed by the Assembly under the devolved powers given to it by the Bill. If the Assembly had not been established, I think the position would be that one subordinate instrument could be revoked by another such instrument only by a vote in both Houses of Parliament confirming the new instrument. It is only Clause 71 of the Bill that dispenses with that need, and we think that is wrong.
I ask the Government please to reconsider that provision in relation to Clauses 34 and 35. We know that another place, in dealing with the Scotland Bill, has moved a most important amendment about these provisions as they relate to Scotland, and the Government have been sensitive to the proposition that both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill should, so far as practicable, be on the same basis. Although I am sure that the Government will take deep cognisance of what another place decides to do, I hope that there is yet a possibility that these provisions in respect of the powers which the Government wish to take to overrule the House of Lords will be reviewed.
I also hope that in addition to the new clause, which we welcome, and Amendment No. 45, which again we welcome, this change can be extended to the override powers. We believe that the Government would be right not to attempt any constitutional change in respect of Parliament by means of the Wales Bill. In that spirit we are prepared to let the new clause go through, and we are grateful to the Minister for putting it forward.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I am glad that the Government have tabled the new clause. However, I do not welcome Amendment No. 45. The nationalists have succeeded in dragging the House of Lords into the consideration of these provisions.
It was said earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) that we could have 59 separate debates. It is a pity that we have to have such a long debate on this clause, because this discussion could have been avoided if these provisions had been accepted, possibly as amended, in Committee. I am not sure whether there was confusion in the minds of Conservative Members, but there must have been some

confusion in the minds of Plaid Cymru Members. They must have been ignorant, stupid or confused. I leave them to choose which it was, but they must have been in one of those states. They held up the debate that we could have had on the referendum by filibustering on the various amendments which they introduced. They did so to prevent what they thought was to be a vote on the minimum requirement when the Government had already given an assurance that a vote would take place. The fact that the Government had said that there was to be such a vote should have prevented the nationalists from adopting their filibustering tactics.
4.30 p.m.
There was a serious attack on the Bill. There are various interpretations, but the interpretation that the nationalists have put forward is that if no attempt was being made to replace the clause the people of Wales would have been denied the opportunity of a referendum.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: That is right.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) agrees. It is strange that he and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) tried to take some of us to task because we did not support a referendum Bill in 1969 when by their recent actions they were seeking to deny the people of Wales having a referendum as a consequence of the Bill passing through Parliament without the original clause. When the time comes, nationalist Members will have an explanation to make to the people of Wales. The whole purpose of their vote in Committee was for this measure, once it received Royal Assent, automatically to be put into effect without the people of Wales being consulted.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The hon. Gentleman attacks us for trying to get rid of the referendum and for the criticism of him and some of his colleagues for voting against a referendum 10 years ago. However, he knows very well the reason for our opposition to the referendum that is now proposed. Our opposition stems from the inclusion of the wrecking device which means that 40 per cent. of the total electorate will have to be involved before the referendum is


valid. In the referendum which was proposed earlier, and in the Common Market referendum, it was the majority that carried the day. That should happen in a normal democracy.

Mr. Wigley: Absolutely right.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We have had some clarification. I understand that the nationalists are opposed to the referendum because there is a minimum requirement. It is strange that they were prepared to vote for a one-third minimum requirement.

Mr. Wigley: In preference to 40 per cent.

Mr. Evans: However, they voted for a one-third requirement. It seems that the argument was not about a minimum requirement. They accepted the minimum requirement. Therefore, the argument is between 33⅓ per cent. and 40 per cent. The argument is about 6⅔ per cent. Apparently that is the whole purpose of the nationalists, who say that they are opposed to a referendum as a means of putting the issue before the people of Wales.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that with the 40 per cent. threshold fair play starts if there is a turnout of over 80 per cent. and that with a 33⅓ per cent. threshold, fair play starts with a 66 per cent. turnout. In other words, fair play starts lower rather than higher.

Mr. Evans: I am glad that we have it on the record. We now know that the nationalists are opposed to a referendum in Wales. Their intention in Committee was not that of the Conservative Party, whose Members voted against the Government on the ground of the provision relating to another place. That is the point that they were making. We now know that there was a deliberate attempt by the nationalists to oppose a referendum in Wales because a 40 per cent. minimum requirement was put in the Bill.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: rose—

Mr. Evans: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) does not wish to join the nationalists on this issue. Is he opposed to a referendum?

Mr. Hooson: Why does the hon. Gentleman fight his battle with the nationalists in the House rather than at the hustings?

Mr. Evans: The reason is that the nationalists are getting fewer and fewer at the hustings at Aberdare. Every time there is a by-election, we remove them. There are fewer and fewer on the council. We had six nationalists on the county council from my constituency but now there is only one. The argument against them must not be advanced only at the hustings. It must be engaged in on the Floor of the House. If we are not careful, we shall be getting mini nationalism. There are other ways of tackling and getting rid of the disease apart from immunising ourselves with a part of the disease. We shall get rid of the disease of nationalism only by speaking clearly against it at every opportunity.
The new clause is relevant and important. The original clause was a vital part of the Bill and, in effect, we now have it back. Are we to find that the nationalists will once more be opposed to the clause?

Mr. Wigley: Yes.

Mr. Evans: It seems that they will be. That is interesting. That which is embodied in the new clause forms a major part of the Bill. The nationalists should not talk about our opposition to devolution. By their opposition to the new clause—they are consistent because they will be opposing it tonight—they are undermining an important part of the Bill.
If the hon. Members for Caernarvon and Carmarthen did not act in ignorance, they acted definitely and deliberately. They have said that Clause 82 was of enormous significance as it provided the facility for the referendum. I questioned whether the referendum would take place without that clause. It seems that the nationalists are afraid of the issue being put before the people of Wales.
Clearly, there should be a consultative referendum. It is good sense that there should be a minimum requirement. It is debatable whether the requirement should be one-third, for which the nationalists voted, or 40 per cent. The nationalists have issued their nonsense about dead votes being calculated, but the terms of the referendum merely provide that those


who are entitled to vote should be taken into account and that, whatever is decided in the referendum, it will be for the House to decide what action to take. It is not a mandatory referendum. It does not follow that any particular action should necessarily flow from it. The hon. Members for Caernarvon and Carmarthen do not seem to take on board that it is a consultative referendum.
There are two arguments. One argument concerns the merits and demerits of the Bill. We have not had much time to go into that argument. The second argument is whether the people of Wales want the Bill. That is why it is important that we should have a referendum. Some of my hon. Friends challenge whether the people of Wales want the Bill. That is why it is vital that the people of Wales should be asked for their opinion. They should be asked whether they want the proposals that the Government have put forward.
In their heart of hearts, the nationalists do not want devolution. They believe in separatism. They want an independent Wales. The whole purpose of their party is to create a separate political and economic system for Wales. It is for that that they stand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. It is difficult to find all this in New Clause No. 1.

Mr. Evans: Without the clause there would be no referendum. I dislike much of the Bill, but it is important that the people of Wales should be given the opportunity of choosing. The nationalists have said that they knew what they were doing, but 1 am trying to demonstrate that they were ignorant on the night when their amendment was carried. They objected to the minimum requirement being written into the Bill. We have heard from them now that they do not want the referendum now that a minimum requirement has been set.

Mr. Wigley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) was not trying to mislead the House in saying that there will be a consultative referendum. Clause 80, as it was amended in Committee, in dealing with the Secretary of State's actions after this loaded referendum, provides that he "shall lay before Parliament" the draft of an order.

When I raised this matter on a point of order in Committee, I was told by the Chair that the referendum was not consultative but was binding and that there was a precedent for it in the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) will not follow that hare down its hole but will continue on the basis of what is strictly in New Clause No. 1. He may have his opportunity of debating wider issues tomorrow.

Mr. Evans: We see now that the hon. Members for Caernarvon and Carmarthen are confused about the Bill. We can possibly expect clarification from them later.
I welcome the provisions that New Clause No. 1 will reinsert in the Bill. The SNP Members are not here to filibuster on this issue. No doubt they are licking their wounds after the results in the elections in Scotland yesterday.
I do not believe there has ever been a surge of nationalism in Wales. I believe that in Scotland it was only a temporary phase. We see from the results in Scotland that nationalism has only briefly reared its ugly head, rather like the Loch Ness monster. The tide of nationalism is a figment of the imagination, not a reality.
I hope that the House will agree to the clause and I hope that the Conservative Party will support it. I shall be most interested to discover what the Welsh nationalists do in the Division Lobbies tonight.

Sir Raymond Gower: I welcome the new clause. I also welcome the Minister of State's explanation and, on the whole, the manner in which he made it. I particularly welcome subsection (4) because its wording is much more consistent with the sort of procedure that we normally use in such matters. I am glad, too, that the Minister of State gave an assurance about Amendment No. 45, which is consistent with subsection (4).
I therefore give a generous welcome to all that the hon. Gentleman said up to that point, but his reluctance to amend Clauses 34 and 35 is at variance with his actions on New Clause No. 1. There is considerable inconsistency in maintaining the procedure which now is to remain


in Clauses 34 and 35. Under that procedure, the need for the other place to give its assent is side-stepped. It is a back-door method of changing our constitutional arrangements. The unwillingness to change Clauses 34 and 35 means that, in spite of the new clause, that procedure will be retained in a small part of the Bill. It would be much more sensible to secure a consistent approach both in the Bill and in our general procedures by amending those clauses. That would overcome our objections, which are based not so much on the superior merit of that procedure but on the belief that this is the wrong way to change our constitutional arrangements.
Like the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and the two hon. Members who intervened in his speech, I am in favour of the procedure in the new clause and the referendum which it makes possible.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: For the sake of my good name—at least, my good name with my hon. Friend the Minister of State—I had better establish immediately that I was not a member of the unholy alliance which caused the occasion which gave rise to the new clause. I am a little concerned, however, about the phrase:
until such day as the Secretary of State may … appoint ".
I am concerned that enactment of the Bill could be delayed until such time as the Secretary of State in
his judgment felt that it was required.
I shall not refer at anlength to yesterday's events in Scotland, but I am entitled to point out that candidates who were as anti-Assembly as I am did unprecedentedly well. Before I am checked by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I should point out that the pro-devolution Labour candidates—and, I understand, the pro-devolution Tories—also did well. I therefore make no comparison in that respect.
After about 70 hours of canvassing at weekends over the past five weeks, some of us are clearer than ever that, whatever caused the election results, devolution was not at the top of the list.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: May I inquire whether the hon. Member's colleagues on the Labour Benches are away convassing

today? Once again, the hon. Gentleman is alone on the Labour Back Benches. Not one Welsh Labour Member of Parliament is prepared to come in to support his Front Bench.

Mr. Dalyell: It must be that once again my opinion represents the undisputed unanimous opinion of the Labour Back Benches present. Certainly that gives me confidence in what I intend to say, and before that confidence is exhausted let me say that I refer not only to the good results in West Lothian but also to people like such as Councillor Ronald Young of Strathclyde, who chaired the Labour "Vote No" campaign in Greenock and who also had a thumping victory.
Is it possible that if, in the light of future political events, after our discussion, much of which has seeped through from the House of Commons and the House of Lords to the Scottish public and, doubtless, to the Welsh public too, it then seems appropriate—and it is not dishonourable for people to change their minds, because after four years we all know a great deal more than we did—we could then decide not to go ahead with the Act? I hope that the answer is "Yes". I have a dreadful suspicion that it may be "No", but I pose the question nevertheless.
We now seem to be in the fantastic position of handing to Plaid Cymru and the SNP what they want when, for the present at least, they seem unable to achieve those objectives through the ballot box.
I have another question to ask. This applies to Wales as much as to Scotland. Some of us are curious about how many of those councillors—Labour or Conservative—who were elected after strenuous campaigns and by the sweat of their political brows will say "After all our work, having established ourselves for four years in these powerful regions, we want our powers usurped by an Assembly." I suspect that, human nature being what it is, once those councillors are elected in positions of great influence in the regions, they will hardly say that they support the Assembly.
The Minister of State may say that I should know now, on the forty-second or forty-third day, that the Assembly will


not meddle in regional, district or local government. But everybody who discusses this matter, on whatever side of the argument he is, refuses to believe Ministers when they say that Assemblies will not very soon begin to meddle in local government. What else are they to do, given the limited nature of their powers? Heaven knows what a Welsh Assembly in particular will do other than meddle in matters that rightly belong, to local government in Wales.
We do not know, even at this stage, whether the Assembly is to be full-time or part-time or what the rewards are to be and the answers to all the practical nuts and bolts questions concerning those who may be going to the Coal Exchange if the Bill is passed.
At this stage, particularly after the events of yesterday and looking forward to what may happen on Thursday in elections in Wales, we should not embark on what would be the break-up of Britain.

Mr. Wigley: There are no elections in Wales on Thursday.

Mr. Dalyell: That means that even more attention should be paid to the Scottish results. We should not contemplate the break-up of Britain for ephemeral wishes which may have come from last year's "Bradshaw". I am joined by two of my hon. Friends who are as anti-devolution as I am.
In all the days and nights during which the Bill has been debated, the House of Commons has done nothing other than do its job properly. It has exposed the very nature of the matters that we are discussing. Therefore, I hope that I can be told the position of the Secretary of State on the matter. It would be a crying shame if, somehow or other, these measures were to get the imprimatur of the House of Commons and if the impression were to be given that somehow it had got through the parliamentary machine and that the elected Members of Parliament had approved of what was being put before the electorate. That would be a false impression of the debates and of the events that have taken place in the House. That is why I ask whether a Secretary of State would have the power not to recommend the Bill to the electors in a referendum.

Mr. Wigley: This is a far-reaching clause, as the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has said. It appears to reach to the regional elections in Scotland and to many other areas.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that the only way of supporting the moderate Assembly in Scotland and the even more moderate Assembly in Wales is by supporting the nationalists. That is the only vote, in the way in which he interprets yesterday's results, that can justify the existence of the Assembly. That is an interesting proposition. It will be interesting to those in the Labour Party in Scotland and in Wales who see that if they are to be judged as supporters of any form of devolution, autonomy, self-government or Parliament they will have to support the nationalists before hon. Members such as the hon. Member for West Lothian will believe that they are serious and know what they are doing. I am surprised that the Minister did not intervene to contradict what was said by his hon. Friend.
A vital point was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare before he was ruled out of order. It is important to set the record straight. On 19th April, the Chairman in Committee ruled on the basis of a ruling in 1975 that a mandatory provision in the Scotland Bill and a similar mandatory provision in the Wales Bill were in order and that the provision that the Secretary of State should do this, that or the other was a mandatory provision. That is a change in the constitutional practice in regard to the two Bills.
I accept that after the Secretary of State has laid something down in the House the consequences are not mandatory, but that first step is mandatory. It has been challenged and has been upheld. All I say in passing is that that is a new concept of a referendum.
I should like to explain why Plaid Cymru will maintain its opposition to the new clause. I am even more opposed to it now than I was to it in its original form in Committee. Since the Committee stage, the Government have made a further change. They have made a further move backwards down the slippery slope of compromise to their own Back Benches and to the Conservatives in allowing the House of Lords to overrule provisions in the Bill. I am surprised


that they have found it necessary to make that concession. I can only imagine that they were afraid of losing the Bill on Third Reading if they did not make the concession. I imagine that they thought that there would be an unholy alliance between Conservative Members and Members of the Labour Party, who would not have swallowed the Bill without this type of provision being made in the new clause.
None the less, I do not see why it was necessary to do this. The Conservative Party, in following us into the Lobby on the Division that we pressed in the clause stand part debate in Committee, did so for erroneous reasons. It did so because it had not followed the logic of the Bill as it stood then, particularly the provisions of Clause 2(4), which says:
An order under subsection (1) above shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
The provision already existed. It was unnecessary to find this rabbit to chase and to give the Government the need to make a concession, unless the Opposition were finding an excuse for voting against Clause 82, having done so without realising the implication of its vote.
However, we were opposed to Clause 82 for the very reasons eventually given by the hon. Member for Aberdare, namely, that we are opposed to a referendum which was built into it a loaded provision of a 40 per cent. threshold which will make it difficult for the people of Wales to pass the Bill. It was not a provision which was required in the EEC referendum, the constitutional implications of which were more far-reaching than those of the Wales Bill or the Scotland Bill. It is not a provision which has been built into the Sunday opening referendum in Wales, which is the only other referendum that we know.
Had that provision been built into the Sunday opening referendum, as I was told in an answer to a parliamentary Question a few weeks ago, not one of the counties in Wales would have Sunday opening. The 40 per cent. provision would have been an insurmountable barrier—the sort of insurmountable barrier that opponents of the Bill wish to see built into the Bill to ensure that the people of Wales do not get the

Assembly even if they vote for it by a straight majority.
The opponents of the Bill are so fearful of not winning on a straight vote that they need to rig a referendum in this way to achieve the result they seek. If that is not so, for what other reason would they have inserted the new clause into the Bill?

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is trying to rewrite history. He is now trying to find justification for the action that he and his hon. Friends took in Committee. How does he explain that he sought to delete the clause and succeeded in doing so before the House proceeded to take a vote on the minimum requirement? How can he argue that it was because a minimum requirement had been written into the Bill when the House proceeded to take the vote after it had voted on the clause?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: We did it in the knowledge—we would not have done it otherwise—of the assurances given by the Government to their Back Benchers at the beginning of the debate that, even if no time were available for moving the amendment, the Government would adopt the 40 per cent. threshold amendment—the barrier, the loaded referendum provision—in order to facilitate matters for the honourable rebels on the Labour Benches and Conservative Members.

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman must not say again that the Government supported the 40 per cent. provision. They did nothing of the kind. They allowed the House of Commons the opportunity to take a decision and they opposed the proposal vigorously. The sooner the hon. Gentleman stops suggesting things that are quite false, the more respect he will be held in.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister should listen to the words that are used. If he listens to the tapes, he will hear that I said that the Government moved the new clause—and they did so. There were 101 other clauses that they could also have moved if they felt it necessary to give this great prerogative of democracy for clauses that have not been discussed because of the guillotine. But they did not choose to make this generous provision to their own Back Benchers and


to the Conservatives on any other clauses. They did not do that on all the other important amendments that were not discussed because of the guillotine.
It was on this one provision only that the Government found that they had to capitulate and to give with one hand what they tried to oppose with the other. They went through the pretence of opposing it with a feeble Whip and ended up with a majority of 72 against them. The Government knew what they were doing in allowing this provision through. If it were not done with their eyes open, the Government are more blind in this matter than I have supposed.

Mr. Ioan Evans: The hon. Gentleman is deliberately distorting the whole situation. The only action that the Government took was to give Back Benchers the same facility as they had given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on the Scotland Bill. Although the House had decided in Committee on that Bill to write in a minimum requirement, after debating two minimum requirements, the Government allowed my hon. Friend to move the deletion of that minimum requirement. They have done no more than that on this occasion. The Government's responsibility is surely not just to put their policy but to allow the House to take the correct decision. On the Scotland Bill, the House reaffirmed its previous decision. In Committee on this Bill, the House of Commons was given the opportunity to vote on the minimum requirement.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is opposed to a referendum, and he filibustered in Committee to deny hon. Members the opportunity to write in a minimum requirement. He succeeded in denying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) has already made one speech.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though I was happy to let the hon. Member for Aberdare hang himself.
The truth is that the Government have not made an attempt on this Bill to get rid of the provision which was inserted in Committee as they did with the amendment of the hon. Member for West Stir-

lingshire (Mr. Canavan) on the Scotland Bill. They have been happy to live with the provision on Report in a way that they were not on the Scotland Bill. That is as far as their democracy goes.
If democracy were so important on this clause in the Wales Bill, why was it not equally important on both Bills on provisions such as the amendments setting out a second question—the alternative of full self-government—or the many other provisions such as the amendment of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) providing for controls over the money that is to be spent on the referendum? Why were those matters not important enough for the Government to give time for them?
If it is important for the Government to give time for all this democracy to be facilitated, as the hon. Member for Aberdare suggests, presumably he will always vote against any guillotine, because the inevitable consequence of a guillotine is that important matters will not be discussed.
To come back to the 40 per cent. amendment that the Government moved, it is interesting to note that they did not facilitate the 33 per cent. amendment which was also on the Amendment Paper. They could easily have moved it. The hon. Member for Aberdare led us to believe that it would have been a reasonable amendment to put into the Bill. The Government chose not the 33 per cent. amendment, which would have allowed a straight referendum on a turnout of about 66 per cent., but the 40 per cent. amendment requiring an 80 per cent. turnout for fair play, which was the worse of two evils.
The only logic that the Government could have had for doing that was that they were in a straitjacket and had been given an ultimatum by their own Back-Benchers that they would lose the whole Bill if they did not do this or if they were so wedded to the concept that the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill must be identical that they thought this was necessary—though they saw it right only a few months earlier to split the two Bills and to give Wales none of the legislative power that was given to Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: What does all this prove other than the magnanimous generosity of the Government towards those who disagree with them?

Mr. Wigley: I missed what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but I take it that he was suggesting that there was magnanimous generosity in this one instance. I cannot understand why it was done in this one instance only if this action was taken from the magnanimous nature of the Government's hearts rather than the reality of the hard grind of politics that goes on behind the scenes in these Bills with all the bargaining to get a Bill of some sort at any cost whether it is to be passed in the referendum in Wales on a straight vote, a twisted vote, a rigged vote or any other sort of vote.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am not the Government's apologist, but, to be fair to them, they said that they opposed the 40 per cent. requirement. Does this not bear out what the Minister has said? The Government had a better chance of defeating the 40 per cent. requirement than they might have had of defeating the lower minimum requirement. It was much easier for them to fight convincingly to defeat the 40 per cent. than to defeat the 33 per cent.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has been here much longer than I have and he knows that the reality is that when the Government are determined to get something as important as this through—and it is in their manifesto and their legislative programme—they do not lose votes on a three-line Whip by a majority of 72. When I heard the extent of the majority, I found it inconceivable that the Government could have been serious about winning the vote. Indeed, we have heard from a number of hon. Members that there was no retribution and not one word of rebuke for voting against the Government. The whole thing is a mockery and charade and an indication of the seriousness of the Government in getting the Bill on to the statute book and implemented.
The new clause has been put down in order to facilitate the rigged referendum with a 40 per cent. threshold. Its purposes could have been achieved by other means. If the Government had put amendments into other parts of the Bill, they would not have needed the provisions that they have now given and the marginal concession that they have given

to the Tories in relation to the House of Lords.
Plaid Cymru has tabled amendments that would have allowed that to be achieved without the reintroduction of this clause, but the Government have reintroduced the clause in order, presumably, to have a rigged referendum. If they had accepted our amendment, they could have had a straight referendum, but they are determined to stick to the 40 per cent. threshold with all that that means.
We are opposing the new clause on the basis of its implications for the referendum. We are not against a referendum. We were calling for a referendum before the Labour Party did so. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) supported a referendum in 1968. However, we are opposed to a referendum which has a built-in obstacle and unfairness that means that the whole concept of the referendum is discredited before it starts.
At a cost of £500,000 in Wales and £800,000 in Scotland, it is a pretty futile exercise to go through all this when the result may not be credible.

Mr. Fred Evans: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman makes his intervention, perhaps I may inquire how the referendum gets involved with the new clause.

Mr. Wigley: Indeed. I am pleased to explain that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the new clause is not passed, there will not be a referendum.

Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) cast his mind back and recall that the debate in 1968 to which he referred, in which the leader of his party, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), took part, was a private Member's motion on proportional representation? I was present at that debate, and at one point there was reference to a referendum on proportional representation. There have been references in the House to the acceptance of a referendum—provided that Plaid Cymru could pretty well write all the questions. Members of Plaid Cymru suggested a multitude of questions which they wanted to see in a referendum.


The hon. Member is engaging in a futile exercise. He is distorting history and filibustering. He is trying to prove that the pot is blacker than the kettle.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member cannot have it that way. If his Government had been as magnanimous to him as they were to some of his hon. Friends in relation to the amendment which led us to our present position, he would have had the opportunity to discuss not only our amendments about the number of questions which should be asked but amendments tabled by Members from other parties about the future of the Welsh people and the alternatives that were open to be put in a referendum, if one were held.
If the hon. Member casts his mind back to 1968, he will recall that there were two measures before the House. One of them was the Scotland and Wales (Referenda) Bill. That is the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen referred.
We oppose this new clause because it provides a referendum of a nature that we do not like. We do not like it because it means, for instance, that the names of people on the electoral register who are dead will be taken into account in the calculation of the 40 per cent., unless specific provision to the contrary is made.

Mr. Dalyell: Let us put the dead men in their graves. The basis of the calculation is what the Registrar General thinks would be an appropriate number, given the month of the year concerned.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member is saying that ex cathedra, but, unfortunately, the Bill does not provide for that. We can go only by what is in the Bill. From questions which I asked in February and March, I discovered that the Government do not have the month by month figures for the number of dead in Wales in the current year. The latest figures which could affect the register are those for 1974. The only way in which the Government can act in this respect is by using the 1974 figures and assuming that in 1978 the same number of dead men will be on the register as were on it in 1974. The Government could make some sort of calculation on that basis. But there is no provision in the Bill for doing that. As the Bill stands, the figure involved is

that which appears to the Secretary of State to be 40 per cent. of the electorate.
Perhaps the hon. Member for West Lothian is suggesting that the Secretary of State should use dark spectacles or put on blue or pink spectacles when looking at the figures, so that even if the figure is 40 per cent. it appears to be something different. That is the only way in which there could be a meaningful exclusion of the dead men's votes.
When one talks about 40 per cent. of the register, one means the people who were registered in October. The register then comes into effect in February of the next year. Each month ###1 per cent. of the register becomes inaccurate. That means that by the end of the year in which that register is in force it is 17 per cent. inaccurate. That means that the total practical turnout is only 83 per cent., and we need 80 per cent. before we can have a straight referendum. If anyone believes that the people of Wales will be hoodwinked in that way into accepting a loaded and rigged referendum, he is wrong.
Another problem arises from spoilt papers. Spoilt papers represent part of the total register. They are, therefore, part of the total figure from which the 40 per cent. is calculated. There is no mechanism for ensuring that the spoilt ballot papers are excluded, unless an amendment is moved in the House of Lords.
Students cause another problem. They may be registered in two places. Students in my constituency may be registered in Caernarvon and Aberystwyth so that they can take part in elections either during term or during vacation. Students can vote only once. That means that the second vote cannot be used under any circumstances. If they are taken into account on the total register—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going far too wide of the new clause. Will he try and restrain himself and come back to the provisions of the clause?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigley: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we oppose the new clause because it provides for what we believe to be an unfair referendum. I am giving the example of the student whose first


vote "Yes" will be cancelled by an assumed "No" vote in the second place of residence. That is a basic unfairness in the referendum. It is a reason why we shall oppose the new clause.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The hon. Member is making the stupid presumption that all students will vote "Yes". I believe that the majority will vote "No". It is also true that the address at which they are resident when the register is taken in October is the address which is valid. They cannot appear on more than one register.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member can make that point tomorrow if he catches the eye of the Chair. This new clause deals with the mechanics of the referendum.

Sir Raymond Gower: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful to look at Clause 80, which is a more appropriate vehicle for discussion on the details of the referendum.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall abide happily by your strictures if all other hon. Members do so.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member for Bedwellty is wrong in his information, but I shall not go into that.
If we have a referendum—and the Government are providing a rigged referendum—we require answers at some stage to the issues that have been raised. It is a matter of opinion whether it is appropriate to debate them now or on some other occasion. These questions must be faced by the Government. If they do not do so, they will leave the people of Wales with the impression that the referendum is fixed and rigged and calculated to stop the Welsh people achieving the "Yes" vote which would be forthcoming in a straight referendum. For that reason, we cannot support the new clause and we shall oppose it in the Lobby.

Mr. John Smith: I shall reply briefly to some of the questions raised. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) referred to the fact that similar override provisions in respect of resolutions not approved by the House of Lords applied to Clauses 34 and 35. The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower),

in a beguiling manner, also asked me to concede the argument on Clauses 34 and 35.
Different considerations arise out of those two clauses, but the other place reached a decision in line with the right hon. Member's thinking on the Scotland Bill. The matter as it relates to the Scotland Bill will come back to this House for further consideration in a Lords amendment. It is reasonable to suppose that the House of Lords will reach much the same conclusion on the Wales Bill. Therefore, the issue will come back for further consideration. It will be considered again before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
We shall bear in mind hon. Members' views. There will be a further debate on this matter in another place. It might be wiser for that debate to take place before the Government say anything one way or the other.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), with considerable ingenuity, managed to refer to the excellent results that the Labour Party achieved in the Scottish regional and island elections. I respect my hon. Friend's sincerity but his enthusiasm for opposing the Bill sometimes leads him into errors of logic. It is fanciful for him to conclude that because the Labour Party had sweeping victories and because devolution was at the centre of its policy, the people of Scotland showed that they did not want devolution.
I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have had a better point if the Labour Party had sustained serious defeats. My hon. Friend would then have said that it was because of our policy of devolution, and that if we did not have it we would have won. However, I must not follow my hon. Friend into these highways and byways of election results. One thing about which we are both agreed is that they are first-class results for the Labour Party. Even my hon. Friend's constituency chairman, who is a very strong pro-devolutionist, as my hon. Friend well knows, can agree with him on that. We can all agree on that.
My hon. Friend asked me what was the meaning of subsection (1) of the new clause. Subsection (1) is precisely the same as the subsection in the old clause.


Clause 82. It is the absolutely conventional provision for commencement orders. My hon. Friend will have seen it in many Bills for which there are commencement orders But it so happens that it is entirely conventional. It alows the Secretary of State to bring in the different sections on different days. However, my hon. Friend was hinting. I think, that it might be used in some way to stop the Act coming into operation at all.
I think that it would be totally wrong for a Secretary of State to manipulate his discretion in that way after Parliament had passed an Act and, moreover, after it had been approved by a referendum.
My hon. Friend takes up some curious positions on the subject of the referendum. Having argued for provisions for a referendum to be put in the Bill, and, indeed, being one of the original signatories to the request that that be done, and having succeeded in getting included a very severe requirement that 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote should vote "Yes", I understand my hon. Friend's position to be that if the Scottish people,

as I believe they will, and the Welsh people, resoundingly decide in favour of devolution, my hon. Friend—so far as Scotland is concerned, at least; he has not said anything about Wales—will still vote against it. He will vote against it although it has been approved by Parliament and the people. Then he has the sauce to say that in addition to all that, the Secretary of State should try to manipulate this new clause in some way so that devolution does not come into operation.

There will come the day when my hon. Friend will realise that he has lost the battle. It has not arrived yet. We shall need the assistance of the electorate to persuade him about that. But it is going far too far to say that we should somehow manipulate this conventional and standard clause in such a way as to meet my hon. Friend's prejudices, because by that time he will be about the only person who is opposed to devolution.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 17.

Division No. 195]
AYES
[5.23 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Davidson, Arthur
Grieve, Percy


Archer, Rt Han Peter
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Grocott, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Harper, Joseph


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dempsey, James
Hayman, Mre Helene


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Doig, Peter
Hooley, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Horam, John


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Boardman, H.
Eadie, Alex
Huckfield, Les


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Edge, Geoff
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
English, Michael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Hunter, Adam


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Evans, John (Newton)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Buchanan, Richard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Faulds, Andrew
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Flannery, Martin
Janner, Greville


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Cartwright, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
John, Brynmor


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Clemitson, Ivor
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Cohen, Stanley
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Coleman, Donald
George, Bruce
Judd, Frank


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Kelley, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Ginsburg, David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Golding, John
Kinnock, Neil


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Gould, Bryan
Lamborn, Harry


Cronin, John
Gourlay, Harry
Lamond, James


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Cryer, Bob
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)




Litterick, Tom
Parker, John
Summerskill, Han Dr Shirley


Luard, Evan
Parry, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McCartney, Hugh
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Price, William (Rugby)
Tacrne, Stan (Preston S)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Radice, Giles
Tierney, Sydney


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)


Mackintosh, John P.
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tomlinson, John


McNamara, Kevin
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tomney, Frank


Madden, Max
Robinson, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Magee, Bryan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Urwin, T. W.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Rooker, J. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Roper, John
Watkins, David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rose, Paul B.
Watkinson, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rowlands, Ted
Weitzman, David


Meacher, Michael
Ryman, John
Wellbeloved, James


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sandelson, Neville
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Mikardo, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Sever, John
Whitlock, William


Mitchell, Austin
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Molloy, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Moyle, Roland
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Silverman, Julius
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis
Woodall, Alec


Newens, Stanley
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Woof, Robert


Noble, Mike
Snape, Peter
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spriggs, Leslie



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Padley, Walter
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Ted Graham and


Palmer, Arthur
Stoddart, David
Mr. Alf Bates.


Park, George
Strang, Gavin





NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hooson, Emlyn
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Beith, A. J.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Watt, Hamish


Crawford, Douglas
MacCormick, Iain
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Pardoe, John



Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freud, Clement
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Mr. Dafydd Wigley and


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Thompson, Georga
Mr. Gordon Wilson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 4

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES OF WELSH SPEAKERS

'In exercising its powers under section 10 above the Assembly shall not do anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
No. 8, in page 6, line 22, leave out Clause 10.
No. 9, in Clause 10, page 6, line 22, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24 and insert
'make arrangements to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the languages and culture of Wales, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreational activities; but shall not under this section do, or include in any such arrangements anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language'.
No. 10, in page 6, line 24, at end insert
'provide that such activities do not discriminate against the use or position of the English language in Wales'.

Mr. Roberts: The new clause is inseparable from Clause 10, which provides that
The Assembly may do anything it considers appropriate to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the


arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreative activities.
Those of us who have served on Standing Committees will be familiar with those words. The phrase "may do anything" will be as shockingly familiar as the first heavy raindrops from an impending cloudburst. The deluge of questions that follow will also have a familiar ring.
Equally familiar will be the gentle, priestlike incantations of the Minister. He will protest his innocence and that of the Government. He will say that the clause has many respectable antecedents, which take us back through the mists of recent history to the Local Government Act 1972, and beyond.
I remember discussing a clause on the same lines on the Community Land Bill, in Committee, in the early hours of 17th June 1975. The Opposition were then assisted by Government-provided notes on clauses, and I quoted the notes on this power to do anything. They referred to it disarmingly as
a power commonly conferred on statutory authorities who may carry out only functions which they are specifically authorised to carry out.
The statutory authority under discussion then was the Land Authority for Wales.
The notes on clauses went on to say:
Since it is not possible to foresee from the outset exactly what may be required in all circumstances if the Authority are to be able to function efficiently, a power is taken to cover any minor activities which it might otherwise be doubtful whether the Authority had power to carry out.
The minor activities were not spelled out in that Bill, but we have the Government's assurance that they were minor and that the begetter of the original clause was none other than my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who had installed it in the Local Government Act 1972.
Section 111 of that Act shows how carefully my right hon. Friend hedged about the power to do anything. In the first place, in that Act it is a subsidiary power, whereas in this Bill the power to do anything has graduated into a principal function. That is a significant elevation for a common little power to perform minor activities.
Furthermore, instead of the hedging that appeared in the 1962 Act, which confined the power and made it
subject to the provisions of this Act and any other enactment passed before or after this Act",
the sphere in which the power may be exercised has now been opened up. The question of what is appropriate is left to the discretion of the Assembly. In other words, Clause 10 opens the door for the Assembly to do anything. It can act intra or ultra vires, within or beyond the powers specified in the remainder of the Bill. There is no limitation on this power to do anything. The Assembly may do anything that "it considers appropriate". I purposely emphasise that latter phrase relating to consideration.
When we were discussing the Local Government Bill in Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby rejected an amendment which would have allowed local authorities to do anything which "in their opinion" was likely to facilitate the discharge of their function, on the ground that it opened the door wide to a breach of the vires rule.
That door has been thrown wide open in Clause 10. Coupled with the fact that the power to do anything is a principal function, we have here a new departure in legislation—a departure that may have serious consequences. What began a few years ago as a fledgling clause, designed to cover minor unforeseen eventualities, has developed into a major power, not limited, as in the Local Government Act, the Community Land Act and the Welsh Development Agency Act, to activities ancillary to the main functions of the bodies concerned.
The power in Clause 10 is one that has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. On those grounds alone there is much to be said for the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) in Amendment No. 8, that the clause should be dropped.
That, in brief, is the constitutional background to our new clause, which seeks to inhibit the Assembly in at least one sensitive area, that of interest and employment opportunities, and to ensure that there is no discrimination on linguistic grounds. We touched on this matter


previously, when we discussed Clause 25, now Clause 24, and the appointment of staff to the Assembly. What I said then is equally valid now, and I shall not repeat it.
Whether we like it or not, there is concern about the danger of discrimination on linguistic grounds. There are those who fear that the Assembly will become an instrument of political and cultural nationalism of an extreme character. What we on the Conservative Benches seek to ensure is fairness in all matters and equal opportunities for all.
Our Amendment No. 9 makes this abundantly clear. It would give power to the Assembly to make arrangements to support, among other things, "the languages"—plural—"and culture of Wales". But the amendment also states that the Assembly
shall not under this section do, or include in any such arrangements anything which would unreasonably prejudice the inteests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language".
The question arises whether the Assembly is likely or unlikely to do anything that is unfair to Welsh speakers or non-Welsh speakers. If the Members of the Assembly represented the numerical division of the Welsh population, about 20 per cent. of Assemblymen would be Welsh speaking and 80 per cent. would not. But they will be elected not on a linguistic basis but on a constituency basis. Even if knowledge of the Welsh language is a winning asset to a candidate in the predominantly Welsh-speaking rural areas, such candidates are very likely to be heavily outnumbered in the Assembly by non-Welsh speaking representatives of the heavily populated industrial areas of Wales. Therefore, on the face of it, the greater potential threat is to the Welsh-speaking minority.
It was said more than once in Committee that the majority of Assemblymen may have far less sympathy with the Welsh language and its related culture and institutions than has been shown by the Westminster Parliament and central Government. There is perhaps an element of truth in that.
5.45 p.m.
Everything depends on the preservation of a sane and balanced approach to our cultural problems in Wales. The sanity

and balance must be shown on both sides of the linguistic divide. We know from experience that the extremist approach only causes antagonism and a gnawing fear of the future, and makes us appear as a house divided against itself. The majority of Welsh people do not want a divided society. They have the example of Northern Ireland vividly before them.
Only 1·2 per cent. of our entire population of 2·7 million claimed in the 1971 census to be Welsh speaking only. The rest of us are either bilingual or speak only English in our daily lives. The ideal for the vast majority of us is not so much a peaceful as a stimulating co-existence which enriches us all.
For example, the English literature of Wales owes a great deal to the influence of the Welsh language, and Welsh literature is often influenced by English style and thought. The inter-dependence of Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers in Wales is extensive. We not only accept it but enjoy it.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman said that 1·2 per cent. of the population claimed to be simply Welsh speaking. I spent a very happy holiday in Dolgellau, in the heart of Welsh speaking Wales, and we were told then that there was virtually no one who could not understand the English language, if he or she wanted to. What is the truth of the matter?

Mr. Roberts: We are talking not about understanding but about speaking the English language. However, I think that in order to discover that 1·2 per cent. one would have to look extremely hard.
There is a biased feel about Clause 10

Sir Raymond Gower: I have been following my hon. Friend's speech with much interest. Presumably, one of the things that the Assembly might do to which some people would object would be to devote a disproportionate amount of its resources to the Welsh language. Would not that place the Assembly in some difficulty when it came to this House? It has no means of raising money on its own. It must come to this House for funds, annually. Would my hon. Friend regard as a sufficient safety measure the fact that there is no means of raising money separately?

Mr. Roberts: The point that I have been making is that it is entirely up to


the Assembly to decide what is proportionate and what is disproportionate. My hon. Friend asks me whether it is a sufficient guarantee that the Assembly must come to this House for the block grant. I do not think that it is—nor are the other measures to which the Assembly would be subject. The whole point is that the Assembly is very much a law unto itself, particularly under Clause 10.
I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is a biased feel about Clause 10 as it stands. It is easy to understand how that has come about if we look at the clause in the light of the fact that in recent times the most persistent demands for financial support by Government have come from institutions and organisations associated with the Welsh language, which has, sadly, been in decline, and for that reason has caused deep anxiety, which expresses itself in various ways.
This, in turn, has induced a feeling of neglect among the non-Welsh speakers and arguments as to the proper balance in effort and resources which should be maintained—the sort of problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has just referred. These arguments range from broadcasting to education, and are to be heard at local and national level. They are a fact of life in Wales.
As legislators, our duty is clear. It is to provide a basic framework which is essentially fair. I believe that our new clause and Amendment No. 9 do that admirably, and better than Clause 10 as it now stands. If I had to choose between the two improvements that we suggest, I would express a sneaking preference for Amendment No. 9, because it is slightly broader in scope than is the new clause, and it leaves out the odious phrase "do anything", which has a curious air of irresponsibility about it.
What I think has happened is that the Government sought to combine in one clause the usual ancillary power to cover unforeseen minor activities necessary for the Assembly to perform its major functions with a main power to support the string of subjects mentioned in the clause. To my mind, the combination makes nonsense of the whole clause. If the Assembly may do anything, it could, let us say, in support of the crafts of Wales, force every household to buy a coracle, or to support

the Welsh language by banning the use of English on Sundays. The mind boggles at the faintly humorous possibilities.
But what sort of thing will the Assembly do? I think that the Government are in honour bound to tell us what kind of activity the clause is intended to cover. Of course, the Government will say that we must trust the Assembly; that the Assembly can do only what it thinks appropriate, and is hardly likely to do anything foolish. That was the line taken by the Secretary of State on one of his rare visits to the House in connection with the Bill. He said:
There is no reason to imagine that it would act in any way which would antagonise the English-speaking majority in the Principality. There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who is prepared to trust the Welsh people but that the Assembly will be fair both to Welsh and non-Welsh people alike."—[Official Report, 8th March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 1488.]
Very well. Let us hope that the Government are right and that the Assembly will behave responsibly. But let us, in this clause, give the Assembly a better indication than there is in the clause now of what we consider to be just, fair and appropriate for it to do—and perhaps our feeling about fairness in these matters will permeate down to local authority level as well. Otherwise, if and when we come to the referendum, those electors who have bothered to read the Bill will rightly be fearful of the power that we are to give the Assembly under this open-ended clause, which, as I said earlier, not only contains no inhibition and no limitation whatsoever on the power of the Assembly but gives the Assembly discretion in the way it is to be used. It is a power without precedent, and it is we who will be blamed if it is misused.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clause.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I had not intended to speak on the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having read it and having listened to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), however, I am not greatly moved to support it. It certainly does not impress me as being necessary.
My first comment to the hon. Gentleman—who obviously has given a great deal of thought to the subject—is that the Welsh Language Act 1967 covers all the necessary points which he made and safeguards the Welsh language. The new


clause, therefore, in my view, is unnecessary.
The hon. Gentleman and the House will recall that the 1967 Act gives the Welsh language equal validity with the English language in public processes in Wales. The Act is generally accepted by the great majority of the people of Wales, whether they speak Welsh or not. As I had responsibility for drafting the Bill and for piloting it through the House at the time, I have followed its operation with considerable care since then in all the various fields of public activity in Wales. I am bound to say that I have received no criticism of it at all. The general view from Anglesey to Gwent is that the Act—which emerged from the recommendations of the Hughes-Parry Report—was desirable and has been entirely effective. Therefore, to seek to insert the clause in the Bill at this stage is, in my view, to create a needless complication.
It is worth bearing in mind that before the 1967 Act the Welsh language had no status whatsoever in Wales. It had been neglected for centuries. In my view—and in the view, I think, of every Member of the House with any feeling for liberty—it was without doubt a disgraceful thing that the oldest spoken language in these islands had been deprived of status and no equal validity with the language which is, we recognise, is spoken by the majority. It was a dishonourable state of affairs, and the 1967 Act is one of the things for which I have been responsible in this House of which I am most proud. A great wrong was righted.
As for those who cannot speak the Welsh language—we appreciate that they are represented by the great majority of the people in the Civil Service in Wales, who likewise do not speak Welsh. That is not a point of criticism or a comment; it is a statement of fact. As for Members of Parliament from the Principality, the majority of them do not speak the Welsh language. They represent, in other words, the people who elect them, and that is how the system works.
6.0 p.m.
I should like to ask the hon. Member for Conway a serious question. What is the real objective of the new clause? Is it further to safeguard the Welsh language? Is it to ensure that Welsh

speakers are not ill-treated or victimised in some way? Is that the object of the new clause? As I understand it, that is what the new clause says. It says that
In exercising its powers under section 10 above the Assembly shall not do anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language.
It is quite clear in saying that, somehow or other, Welsh speakers are to be protected from ill-treatment, victimisation or exclusion from appointment to some employment in the public service. But, of course, the hon. Member for Conway and the other signatories to the motion know perfectly well that those who speak Welsh also speak English. So far as I can predict, no monoglot Welsh-speaking people will apply for these posts.
If that is the purpose of the new clause, we should be told by Conservative Members that this is what they are seeking to achieve. With that I would have a certain sympathy if it was realistic. But the fact is that our Welsh-speaking compatriots, who will be in competition for any of these appointments, are people who will be fluent in both languages.
Why, therefore, is the new clause necessary? I have a slightly uneasy feeling—I am open to persuasion—that the whole thing is a bit of a humbug and that it is something of an insult to the Welsh language. The endless innuendo—

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is bringing down the level of the debate.

Mr. Hughes: When one begins to criticise a new clause moved by the Opposition, one is always accused by hon. Members of bringing down the level of debate. It is not a question of the level of debate, it is one of analysing the new clause honestly and looking at it from every conceivable point of view.
This endless innuendo that, somehow, English speakers will be ill treated in Wales is, in my view, offensive. They are not badly treated. If they were, I would certainly take all possible steps, as would all my hon. Friends who speak the Welsh language, to ensure that that did not take place. Indeed, it never has taken place. Any student of Welsh history


knows that that is just not true. English speakers in Wales have had every opportunity, at every level and at all times during the last 500 years to find jobs. I do not know what the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) is muttering about. That may not be within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge, but it is certainly within mine.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Since the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me specifically, I was merely indicating that as far as I was aware there is absolutely nothing in New Clause No. 4 which indicates or suggests that in the past any people have suffered discrimination of the kind to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. Therefore, there need not be such a flurry of Order Papers when I say that.
Since I am on my feet, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will answer a question? It is a genuine question, and I hope that he will take it as such. When referring to the 1967 Act he seemed to imply that that rendered this new clause unnecessary. He indicated that that Act, for the first time, achieved what we would all agree was the laudable object of giving validity, for certain purposes, to the Welsh language. Is he saying that there is anything in that Act which prevents discrimination against people who speak Welsh, or discrimination against people who speak English? As I understand it, there is not. If there is, I would genuinely be assisted if the right hon. Gentleman, as author of that Act, could identify the section that has that effect.

Mr. Hughes: What the Act does is to ensure that there is no discrimination against the Welsh language. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, that is what had occurred for several centuries. It is that point of view that he must try to understand. What I am saying is that in the light of that Act, and in the light of all the circumstances which we know to obtain in Wales at present in the public service, this clause is not necessary. It tends to confuse the issue and to create a situation that is not helpful to either the Welsh speaker or the English speaker.

Mr. Brittan: I am sorry to interrupt again. This is a genuine question, and

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would like to assist the House by answering it, if he is able to. As I understand it, the Act makes lawful what was previously not lawful, namely, the use of the Welsh language for certain purposes. To that extent it removes discrimination against the Welsh language.
But does the Act, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, prevent discrimination against people who speak the Welsh language or speak the English language? If so, where in the Act is it to be found? That is quite a different matter from permitting or banning the use of the language. If the answer is that there is nothing in the Act which does that, this provision is not rendered unnecessary by the Act, although it may be desirable or undesirable on other grounds.

Mr. Hughes: The short answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that at present the law itself protects the English speaker. English is the official language of all the United Kingdom. There is no policy of bilingualism. English is always the first language, not only in England but in Wales. English has priority. All official documents are published in English. Some are translated into Welsh. For example, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knows, that is true of legal documentation. There is no likelihood of discrimination against English, because English is dominant under the law as it is. There is no reason to repeat the obvious in this new clause.

Mr. Brittan: With great respect, that does not deal with my point. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I am genuinely not trying to be awkward or difficult for its own sake. But it seems that there is a real question which has to be disposed of if the argument that the 1967 Act renders the new clause unnecessary is to be considered seriously. As I understand it, that Act merely says that Welsh may be used as well as English for certain purposes. That is quite a different matter from saying that people cannot be discriminated against because they speak Welsh or because they speak English.
It is perfectly possible that someone would be permitted to use the Welsh language if he is engaged in a certain function. None the less, a public body could exercise discrimination to prevent him


from enjoying the opportunity of exercising that function by gaining a particular type of employment. As far as I am aware, the Act that the right hon. Gentleman introduced does not prevent that. The new clause may not be necessary or desirable, but it is not rendered unnecessary by the Act, because the Act does not cover the same ground as does the new clause.

Mr. Hughes: I regret that I have not made myself clear. What I was seeking to explain was that for the first time for several centuries the 1967 Act made it possible for discrimination against the Welsh language to be avoided. With regard to the English language, there never has been any discrimination, and could be no discrimination at present. I hold this to be self-evident.
I return to my question. Do the signatories to the new clause believe that because a man speaks Welsh in his own country he might be denied the opportunity of a job? The answer to that is "No." Do they, then, think that because a man speaks no Welsh he will be denied a job in his own country, for example, by the Assembly? I think the answer to that is obviously "No." The great majority of any Assembly which may be elected as a result of this Bill will consist of people who represent non-Welsh speaking areas. They will reflect the same kind of linguistic ratio as exists in the House of Commons at present.
Does anyone in the House believe that a Welsh Assembly will have a majority of Welsh-speaking people who will seek to impose the Welsh language on the population of Wales against its wishes? That seems to be the proposition. If that were to be the case, if anyone in the House believed that it would be so, there might be a case for supporting the new clause.

Mr. Peter Rees: May I, as a Welshman who does not speak Welsh, give the right hon. Gentleman a precedent that he may care to consider? I understand it to be the case, although I have not checked, because I did not anticipate the course of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, that in the Republic of Ireland there are certain posts where it is obligatory to speak Erse, or the Irish language. It is not without the bounds of possibility, because we can

never entirely forecast what future generations may do in an excess of enthusiasm, that that kind of restriction will be imposed on some positions in Wales. One cannot foretell. But if it is a possibility, surely this new clause cannot be undesirable.

Mr. Hughes: I do not want to be tempted to cross the Irish Sea to Ireland and discuss the experience there, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman knows Irish, or Erse, as I know it, he will agree that it has been a dismal experience. We have to do a little better than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman has advanced an argument against the new clause. There may be rules and regulations in the Republic about language, but as far as as I know very few people observe them. We want to ensure that people speak Welsh naturally and are encouraged to do so with the minimum of rules and regulations. Therefore, I think the new clause unnecessary and I invite the House to oppose it.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I want to speak about my Amendments Nos. 8 and 10, particularly No. 8, which proposes that we should leave out Clause 10, which provides that
The Assembly may do anything it considers appropriate to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the arts, crafts, sport and other cultural and recreative activities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said, that seems to convey or provide an enormously wide range of powers. This debate is important at least because it gives us a chance to find out exactly what those powers are. As the House will recall, it was one of the many important clauses that were not debated in Committee because of the operation of the guillotine, and it is therefore vital that we should have a clear statement of what the whole thing adds up to.
As I understand it, the Government's view is that the powers embodied in Clause 10 are the normal executive non-statutory powers of Ministers. In other words, it does not provide any power to legislate. Indeed, the Assembly is not a legislative body. The Attorney-General, in a debate on 18th April, described the powers in these words:
Those are the sorts of powers which are exercised by Ministers of the Crown even if they step outside what is perhaps properly or constitutionally the subject of ministerial


powers as such."—[Official Report, 18th April 1978; Vol. 948.]
That seems a slightly odd description. I was surprised that the Attorney-General should talk in terms of accepting things outside the proper or constitutional powers. Nevertheless, I think that I see what he meant.
These powers are really executive powers which have grown up out of time to Ministers of the Crown. One of the interesting and important aspects of Clause 10 is that it marks an exception: that the rest of the executive powers which belong to Ministers are not transferred to the Welsh Assembly. The Government make it clear, by Clauses 10 and 11, that the normal executive non-statutory powers of Ministers of the Crown will not be exercised by the Assembly and that they can be exercised by the Assembly only when conveyed to the Assembly by specific provision in the Bill. That is what Clauses 10 and 11 do. So it is worth noting that there is a real limitation on the powers of the Assembly in the normal powers that are not conferred by statute, and that these are the exceptions.
I was also to a certain extent reassured by the Attorney-General in a letter that he has written to me. He says:
The powers conferred by the clause do not include any power to impose legal duties or liability on the subject, or to confer legally enforceable rights or immunities on the subject. For those purposes, further legislative provision would be needed.
So, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right—and I am not disputing what he says—the sweeping powers in Clause 10 are not perhaps quite as sweeping as they appear at first blush.
6.15 p.m.
That is an improvement. I was glad to discover that point from the Attorney-General. But it remains true that there appear to be very wide executive powers, and those powers do not necessarily involve the spending of resources. One hon. Member has implied that the need to raise resources would serve as a limitation on the Assembly. But, even if the Assembly is limited in its resources—it has only the block grant—there are some important actions that it could take which do not require the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. Therefore, it appears that, in the task of promoting the Welsh language, for example, and in the

other topics mentioned in Clause 10, the Assembly can operate very wide executive powers.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) said that it would be unthinkable for the Welsh Assembly to do certain things. He may well be right, but we do not know. We cannot tell until the Assembly is in being. But I reiterate that, when one is debating legislation of this kind, one has a duty to prepare for things going wrong. It is no good providing constitutions which depend solely on good will and common sense being exercised on all sides. The world is not necessarily going to work like that.
It is reasonable, therefore, to put forward the view that one ought to be cautious and, if one likes, to lean over backwards to make sure that there are adequate safeguards. It seems to me that it is probably within the executive powers of the Welsh Assembly, without breach of any statute, to require, for example, that the correspondence of a certain Assembly Department should be carried out exclusively in Welsh. I may be wrong—there may be some statute which would prohibit the Assembly from doing that—but on the face of it it seems to me that such power exists.
It is certainly evident that the Assembly, in so far as it can control these matters, might decide to support only Welsh language education courses rather than English language education courses. If these were matters for local government, it could not do so because it has no powers over local government, but in so far as these are matters for Assembly government I think that these powers would lie with the Assembly.
As far as I can judge also, the Assembly could require the operation of the National Health Service in Wales to be conducted in the Welsh language because the NHS comes under the Secretary of State. It is not under local government. Therefore, that power theoretically exists. Hon. Members may laugh at the suggestion, and I accept that it is unlikely that the Assembly would do that, but the fact remains that, if I read the situation correctly, that is the sort of power that could exist.
Clause 10 appears to make it possible for the Assembly to decide to push the Welsh language in that kind of way as


long as the matter is within the executive purview of the Assembly. I believe that these are very important considerations. I put forward my two amendments initially to try to get clearly on record what the position is—that is very important—but if we get an unsatisfactory reply from the Minister I shall have no hesitation in dividing the House.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I suppose that all of us, when we envisage what the Assembly will be like, tend rather to exaggerate in our imaginations. My hon. Friends tend to think that it will be dominated by the Labour Party, while Labour Members in their nightmares imagine that it will be dominated by Plaid Cymru. People in my part of the country assume automatically that it will be dominated by representation of the Valleys and of the South.
If, however, we reflect for a while, I think we realise that the Assembly will be composed almost certainly of reasonable men trying to do a reasonable job. However much I hope that the thing never comes into existence, the probability is that when it comes to elections it will be composed of reasonable men.
However, there is another possibility that I wish to outline which will not stretch the imagination too far. Suppose that, impossibly, the Bill receives Royal Assent and there is a referendum this year. Suppose even more impossibly, that the referendum comes up with a "Yes" answer. Suppose that the next thing that happens is that there is a General Election, and the Government fall. Suppose that the new Conservative Government, as is only reasonable to expect, runs into very severe difficulties. Almost certainly, the first few months of the next Conservative Government will be very difficult. There will be a period in which that Government will undoubtedly be very unpopular. All incoming Governments tend to lose popularity very quickly and to lose by-elections. If the kind of threats that sometimes come from the Left wing of the Labour Partymaterialise, the Conservative Government will have to take very tough measures and they may find themselves very much reviled. Suppose that at that moment, elections were held to the Welsh Assembly.
The people of Wales would be very unhappy about the firm line being taken by the Conservative Government, but they would also be very mindful of that the total and utter failure of the Labour Party to do anything at all to resolve the problems of Wales. The Welsh people would remember the level of unemployment, the stagnation in production and all the unfulfilled promises.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will the hon. Member tell the House which firm line will be pursued by the Conservative Government that would prove unpopular with the people of Wales?

Sir A. Meyer: Let us suppose that there is a politically motivated strike in one of the public services and the Conservative Government feel obliged to stand up to that strike and refuse to give in to unreasonable demands. There could be a massive revulsion of feeling on that issue. It is not unthinkable. However, I do not think that it will happen for one moment. I am sure that the trade union leaders will be very sensible and responsible in their dealings with a Conservative Government. But such a situation could occur. In these circumstances, with the Conservative Government very unpopular, and everybody remembering the total failure of the Labour Government, it is not inconceivable that the elections to the Welsh Assembly would produce a massive majority for Plaid Cymru. If the election was held at the right psychological moment, this could be the outcome.

Mr. Alec Jones: Does the hon. Member recall his early remarks today when he said that it was possible to exaggerate the situation? Is that not what he is doing now?

Sir A. Meyer: I do not think that this will happen for one moment. I am simply saying that it is possible.
I said earlier that I was sure the Assembly would consist of reasonable men, and I am sure that if there is a majority of Plaid Cymru members they will all be like the hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Wigley)—eminently reasonable men. However, even if they are reasonable, they are dedicated to the prevalence of one particular philosophy. By definition, they will place very great


emphasis on the promotion of the status of the Welsh language.
The champions of the language, more than anyone else, need the force of law in order to attain their ends. This is a demonstration of the absurdity of the tactics of some elements in the Welsh Language Society who deliberately set out to break the law and bring it into contempt as a means of advancing their cause. There is nothing they could do that is more sure to frustrate their own ends. It is only by the operation of the law that the language will spread.
I see very real advantage in trying to define as tightly as possible, and very much more tightly than is done in this very wide clause as it stands, the functions of the Assembly in this matter of the promotion of the language.
It is to be expected that when the Assembly meets, these reasonable men, whether they belong to Plaid Cymru or any other party, will be bitterly disappointed by the powers which they find they are able to exercise effectively. It does not take any great gift of prophecy to say that one of the most contentious and time-consuming issues will be the language itself. This is one of those subjects about which people can talk at enormous length without any great need for facts. One can feel a great deal better having had a thoroughly good argument about it. I am quite sure that it will be a major issue in the debates of the Assembly.
For that reason, I see great advantage in trying to define as tightly as possible what the Assembly may or may not do in order to discourage the kind of fruitless, demagogic oratory which will undoubtedly ensue if the Assembly has the feeling that it need only push a little further to get additional powers in order to do more for the Welsh language.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the hon. Member suggesting that we will have fruitless, demagogic oratory in the Assembly in Wales?

Sir A. Meyer: My experience of the Welsh Grand Committee has convinced me that such activity is totally unknown in any present elected forum of Welsh Members. However, the unthinkable could happen.
It would be harmful if the Assembly sought to extend its powers in the matter of the promotion of the language. I understand the point of view of those who seek by every means to extend its use and its influence. But there is a very delicate balance.
In the county part of which I have the honour to represent, the education authority has a policy that every child in school must learn the Welsh language. While that is its policy, it is nevertheless always prepared to be reasonable if there are parents who, for any good or valid reason, do not wish their child to learn Welsh. This is managed with great skill and subtlety and with a general consensus of opinion all round. The number of complaints that I have had, other than from fanatics on both sides, has been minimal. I woud be very reluctant to upset the kind of modus vivendi which exists in local authorities in many parts of Wales by the incursion into this very delicate area of an Assembly which is burning to find something to do and, which is perhaps, consumed with a desire to perform well in front of the television cameras.
I would very much prefer that the role of the Assembly in these matters should be as closely defined as it is in the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). That is why, if there is a vote on that amendment, I shall support it.

Mr. David Price: The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) made two points with which I do not entirely agree. He referred to the new clause and my hon. Friend's amendment as if they applied only to the public sector and the public service. If he re-reads the wording of Clause 10 as it stands, I do not think he will find that it was amenable to that interpretation. It goes a good deal wider.
The right hon. Member pointed out that the Welsh language is the oldest language spoken in the United Kingdom. But all the languages spoken in this country are, in historical terms, relatively young. Welsh itself dates only from shortly before the Roman invasion, so the historians tell us. It was a Celtic language; in fact, it was a brythonic branch of the Celtic language. Many things in the Welsh culture and in the


Welsh heritage are older than the language. Indeed, the great Welsh mountains can be dated in millions of years. Therefore, we are talking of languages that are young. Languages are still growing and developing. I think that we have a common bond in this aspect of our debate.
6.30 p.m.
If we think of the more primitive languages, it will be within the knowledge of some hon. Members that it is said by Persian scholars that the three basic languages are Arabic, Persian and Turkish. It is said that Arabic is the most persuasive and the language spoken by the serpent to seduce Eve, that Persian is the most poetic and the language in which Adam and Eve talked to each other, and that Turkish is the most menacing and that it was the language spoken by the Archangel Gabriel in dealing with Adam and Eve. I do not know whether there is any truth in that view, but it suggests that there are possibilities in developing our own languages.
With a name such as mine, I could be none other than friendly to the development of the Welsh language, but it would be as a developing langauge and not as a language from the past. We want to see the development of the Welsh language as a modern language. No more harm could be done to the wider use of the Welsh language than any attempt to show prejudice in Wales against the use of the English language.
As far as we know, the number of Welsh speakers in Wales is just over 20 per cent. Let us be generous and say that one-quarter of the Welsh people are Welsh speakers. Most of these Welsh speakers are, of course, bilingual. On the other hand, the vast majority of Welsh people do not speak Welsh at all. We must keep that fact clearly in our minds. The right hon. Member for Anglesey might like the position to be the other way round so that 75 per cent. of the Welsh people were bilingual, but the fact is that that is not the position. That factor must be taken into account in our arguments.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why our fears arose on this topic, and he wondered whether there was any evidence of prejudice one way or the other. I am sure he would agree that the fact that

it was necessary for him to put the 1967 Act on the statute book was evidence of prejudice against the Welsh language in the past. Therefore, I believe that it would not be a bad thing to reaffirm in this Bill the importance of the Welsh language. Examined the other way round, I think that there is little evidence at the moment of prejudice against the English language in Wales, but it could be that as the population in Wales—over, we hope, a generation or two—becomes more bilingual between Welsh and English, there could be a degree of prejudice in certain appointments against those who speak only English and are not bilingual.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are schools in Wales where the predominant language is Welsh and English is the second language. Unless one is a Welsh speaker, it is obviously inappropriate that one should be appointed to those schools.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: It is a question not so much of prejudice but of common sense. It is not only a matter of public appointments. What must be borne in mind is that the four great clearing banks in my part of the world have appointed bank managers who are Welsh speaking, otherwise their business would go down. That is a matter of common sense.

Mr. Price: That may well be so, and I should like to see more bilingual people in Wales. But, having said that, I think that it would be a pity if there were not a general statement written into the Bill that both languages coexist and that there should not be a prejudice against one or the other. The Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill are new departures in our arrangements. Therefore, we must examine these matters in terms not of today but of tomorrow. We are entitled to anticipate what could be prejudices in the future as such bodies as the Welsh Language Society pursue their aims by means that do not always commend themselves to Members of the House.
Although I hope that my fears are groundless, I can see nothing but benefit in writing into the Bill provisions on the lines of the new clause. If the Government come forward with an alternative form of wording that achieves the same end, I shall be agreeable to accepting it. I hope that the enthusiasts for the Welsh


language will follow the old Welsh proverb "A gentle word will make the argument strong".

Mr. Hooson: Although there are superficially attractive arguments in favour of the new clause and of Amendment No. 9, I think that they should be rejected. I believe that these proposals are highly divisive. I do not doubt the motives of those who tabled these provisions, and I know that there is a certain amount of fear in the House that language somehow will be used by the minority in the Assembly as a lever to thrust the language on other people, but I think that the whole concept behind these provisions is an insult to the people of Wales.
Let me say why I take that view. For about 350 of the 450 years which have elapsed since the Act of Union was passed, there was a tremendous effort by the Government to get rid of the Welsh language. In Tudor times the 1542 Act was definitely aimed against the language. It was thought at the time that to ensure the unity of England and Wales it was necessary to get rid of the Welsh language as soon as possible. The excepion is that the order for the translation of the Bible came from a Tudor monarch, and nothing did more to preserve the Welsh language than the translation of the Bible into Welsh.
However, over the last century or so one can see a gradual change in educational policy and in the policy of the Government in promoting the Welsh language and Welsh culture. By the time the Government decided to promote the language, it had already suffered enormous depredations. A vast amount of Government money had been spent over the centuries devoted to killing the Welsh language. The amount of money necessary for first aid was an amount commensurate with a language and a culture which had received grievous blows as a direct result of Government policy.
We are gradually getting over that stage, and there is a general appreciation in Wales among non-Welsh-speaking people of the value of the Welsh language and culture and little genuine hostility towards it. I have been amazed at the contributions made to some of these debates by some hon. Members who should know better to the effect that, if

the Assembly is set up, language will be a divisive issue. I do not take that view.
There are people in my constituency who are nearly monoglot Welsh speakers but who are against the Assembly. They do not take the view that the language will be divisive. I can understand people who do not want devolution or the Assembly and who put their point of view fairly and squarely, but I hate the raising of the prejudice involved in the Welsh language. Most right hon. and hon. Members have not raised such prejudices, but there have been exceptions.
I well understand the motivation of those who tabled these provisions. I do not think that they are aiming their proposals at the Welsh language and I do not think that they intend to be divisive, but let us examine the wording of the proposals. The clause states:
the Assembly shall not do anything which would unreasonably prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of those who do, or those who do not, speak the Welsh language.
There is an endless source of litigation in the interpretation of the words
would unreasonably prejudice".
Is it not much better to leave the issue to the good sense and the good grace of Assembly Members? Bearing in mind the linguistic pattern of Wales, is there any reason to think that the elected Assembly representatives will be of a different pattern from the Members elected to this place? By and large, the House broadly represents the linguistic pattern of Wales as well as anything else.
It is insulting to the people of Wales to suggest that it is necessary to provide this sort of rule. It should be left to the Assembly. If there is to be a statement about the language, both languages should be enshrined in the Bill as languages of equal validity.
I represent a constituency where the linguistic pattern is close to the general linguistic pattern of Wales. About one in four of my constituents speak Welsh. About three-quarters do not speak Welsh, yet they would throw anything at anyone who described them as English. They regard themselves as non-Welsh-speaking Welsh people. There are many of them, and there were their forebears going back a couple of centuries.
In my constituency, which represents a fair pattern, we do not see people refused jobs for which they are appropriately qualified merely because they are not Welsh-speaking or because they are. There are obviously some jobs where the fact that the applicant is Welsh-speaking is an added qualification. The matter must be left to the good sense, the good taste and the sensivity of the Welsh people.
If we are trying to save the minority language, the worst thing that we can do is to engender the hostility of the majority. If that is done, sympathy for the language and the culture is lost and steps are taken to try to stamp them out. If we take a more civilised view, we shall assist the Welsh language.
The musical festival in my constituency is nearly always run by the non-Welsh-speaking section of the community. However, choirs take part from the Welsh-speaking section and it is supported equally by those who are Welsh-speaking and those who are non-Welsh-speaking. On the other hand, the committees of the Powys Eisteddfod are run very largely by the Welsh-speaking community. The money is often raised by the non-Welsh-speaking community as much as by the Welsh-speaking community. Both communities always support the eisteddfod. That is the pattern which has been established in my constituency, which is wedged between England and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells).
My constituency has had a linguistic pattern that is somewhat different from, for example, the linguistic patterns of Gwynedd or South Wales. The constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) was anglicised more than mine many years ago. The people have learned to live with these patterns, and the bogymen that are raised when talking about language do not exist in practice.
We should do nothing to suggest that it is necessary to incorporate in the Bill the sort of provisions that are in the new clause. The matter should be left open. If we are to have an Assembly, I am sure that those who are elected to it will behave in a civilised way conscious of the great Welsh heritage, whether it is in Welsh or in English.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I tend to share the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). I believe that we are considering fears that need never have been expressed. The major safeguard is that an Assembly would have to be re-elected. However, I can understand some of the fears that have been expressed. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to the possibility—he contemplated a fearful situation—of the Welsh Assembly being dominated by Plaid Cymru Members. We are, of course, dealing with a hypothesis. We may never have an Assembly.
If there is to be an Assembly, and if there is the situation that the hon. Member for Flint, West postulated, Plaid Cymru Members may try to insert some compulsion rather than persuasion into the move towards the Welsh language. However, I tend to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey. I do not think that what was contemplated by the hon. Member for Flint, West is a likely eventuality. Even if that evil day should ever come, I am sure that it would be rectified, assuming that we have an Assembly in the first place. Provided that we do not get a one-party State, the people would take action.
We have been talking about job opportunities, which are linked very much to education opportunities. I agree with John Stuart Mill, who said that education worked better by persuasion that persecution, by conviction rather than compulsion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey can take credit for the Welsh Language Act, 1967, which has given legal status to the language of Wales.
There is no difference between the main parties on this issue. We all want to encourage the language. The difference between a small minority and the rest of us is that there are some who take measures that are repulsive to the majority in Wales. Those who try to encourage the Welsh language by painting out road signs are doing the language more harm than good. There is a small, vocal minority which, instead of trying to act through the ballot box and trying to take legal action, tries to take the law into its own hands. It takes action that is detrimental to the language.
All these matters are connected with education. We had some interesting figures from the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), who told us that 1·2 per cent. of the people of Wales speak only Welsh. That is because of the education system. In August 1976, primary school pupils were assessed to ascertain whether they were fluent in Wales. Of those assessed, 52·4 per cent. were found to be fluent in Gwynedd and 28 per cent. in Dyfed. In the six other counties it was found that fewer than 10 per cent. were fluent. The figures are interesting. In Powys there were 9·3 per cent., in Clwyd 9·1 per cent., in West Glamorgan 5·5 per cent., in Mid-Glamorgan 3·9 per cent., in South Glamorgan 2·1 per cent. and in Gwent only ·2 per cent.
Although it is to be hoped that Wales will move forward and will become bilingual, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey has said it is at present dominated by non-Welsh-speaking Welshmen, who are Welsh none the less. There are those of us in Wales who are just as proud of Dylan Thomas, who wrote his poetry in English in Wales, as we are of those who write their poetry in the Welsh language.
There is a need to preserve and encourage the language. I am pleased to find that the Labour Party in Wales is putting forward the following proposals. First, it proposes that there should be a strong sense of priority as regards the most urgent and effective ways of helping the language. Secondly, it proposes that there should be respect for the views of the local community. Thirdly, it proposes that there should be respect for parental wishes and for the rights of the individual. Fourthly, it proposes a recognition of the essential need to prevent the language from becoming a divisive issue among the people of Wales. Fifthly, it proposes an acceptance of the view that the language can be saved only if the people of Wales want it, and not by compulsion.
It is important that we should seek to persuade the people to become Welsh-speaking, but there must not be any attempt to compel them to do so. That is why, in a sense, there may be some justification for the Opposition intro-

ducing the clause and seeking to incorporate it in a Bill that is designed to cover all eventualities.
Part of Clause 10 states:
The Assembly may do anything it considers appopriate to support … the Welsh language.
That is a sweeping statement, but there is the safeguard that those who are elected will seek to be re-elected. Those who are elected will come largely from South Wales, Mid-Glamorgan and Gwent. I question, therefore, whether the Opposition should persist in dividing the House on this issue. If an Assembly was established and it insisted that ability to speak Welsh was essential for posts in it, that would be divisive. That would deny job opportunities to the many non-Welsh-speaking candidates. I do not see such a situation arising, however. We should not unnecessarily arouse dangers that will not materialise.
I believe that all parties wish to encourage the language, and we would deplore it if the best person for a job in the Assembly was not appointed because of language considerations. The Assembly could say that Welsh was preferable or desirable. That would depend on the job. I agree that in some jobs fluency in Welsh would be essential; the Welsh language teacher is an example. It would, however, be wrong for the Assembly to insist that for administrative posts the Welsh language was essential.
We should deplore the activities of those who seek to introduce compulsion. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) gave evidence to the Kilbrandon Commission in which he tended to indicate that in the future there might be an element of compulsion. I hope that his party does not think that we can change the situation in Wales by Compulsion. If anything is to be done, it must be done by persuasion. We must persuade people that we have a cultural heritage that must be encouraged in the future.
I believe that the safeguard on this matter will be the people of Wales, 80 per cent. of whom are mainly English-speaking. I cannot imagine a situation in which a majority would be elected to the Assembly who would seek to bring about the type of compulsion to which the Plaid Cymru Members occasionally refer.

Mr. Alec Jones: Many hon. Members have used words such as "fairness" and "reasonableness" and so on. I wonder though whether we are being as fair as we think if we seek to write a provision such as this into the Bill. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said that we should seek to write into the Bill what we consider to be fair. That contains an element of conceit. It assumes that on the question of language we in this House would be fairer than would be an elected Assembly in Cardiff. I do not see that there is conclusive proof that in all such cases this House would always act in a fairer way.
The new clause and Clause 10 refer to several subjects apart from language. But the Government believe that if a particular unfairness can occur—it was suggested that an example might be the Assembly's spending excessive sums on sponsoring the Welsh language—similar unfairness could occur by the Assembly deciding under Clause 10 to spend more money on the arts or on sport or on a whole range of other matters than some people would think was appropriate.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Does not the Under-Secretary realise that our clause refers to actions which might prejudice the interests or restrict the employment opportunities of the persons concerned? Therefore, it could apply to any of the issues in the clause, not simply to language.

Mr. Jones: I listened attentively to the debate, but I do not recall any hon. Member making any contribution to the debate without emphasising that there was a possibility of unfairness over the Welsh language. That was at the root of the debate. The form of words used suggests that there should be fairness to Welsh speakers and to non-Welsh speakers alike. In the new clause there is the automatic assumption that the House would be fairer than the Welsh Assembly, and there is also the suggestion that unfairness could occur only in relation to the Assembly's handling of the language issue.
The hon. Member for Conway was somewhat concerned that the wording of the Bill permitting the Assembly to do anything it considered appropriate might go too wide. He conceded that those words have fairly respectable precedents,

however. I am advised that his reference relating Clause 10 to Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 is not strictly valid, as Section 111 would be more appropriately related to Clause 27 of the Bill.
There are, however, good antecedents for this sort of terminology. A similar point to this was raised in our debates on the Welsh Development Agency Bill. Section 1(6) of the Welsh Development Agency Act reads:
The Agency shall have power to do anything … which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of their functions".
At that time there was great suspicion about that provision. I believe, however, that in the end there was wide agreement in the Committee on that Bill that those fears were unfounded, and I believe hon. Members will agree now that the Welsh Development Agency has acted perfectly reasonably and there is no reason to suppose that the Assembly will do other than that.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again, but he has referred to the Welsh Development Agency. I dealt with the section he quoted during the Committee proceedings on the Bill. There is an important difference. On that occasion we were discussing a subordinate clause which referred to the principal functions of the Bill. Those powers could be exercised only subject to the principal functions. Here we are discussing a principal clause laying down a main function. Surely that is a considerable difference.

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Member had waited a few seconds more, he would have heard my full explanation, which was sought by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) concerning hese powers. We have had a similar argument about the use of the words
shall have power to do anything".
Experience has shown that those fears were unfounded in respect of the Welsh Development Agency.
I believe that the new clause is unnecessary. The correct course of action is to leave the matter to the responsible people. There is some element of risk or danger in writing such a clause into the Bill. As the debate has shown, while hon. Members have used words such as


"fairness" and reasonableness", many of the speeches this afternoon have referred to confusion, division and exaggeration. Should the House be so foolish as to agree to the new clause, it would be adding to that confusion and division and to the exaggerated statements that we have heard today.
The hon. Member for Conway said that this meant that the Welsh Assembly could act ultra vires. When people use Latin words to me, especially when they have legal connotations, I consult the oracle. I am given the advice that it is nonsense to suggest that the Assembly could act ultra vires. I am advised that the Assembly will be a statutory body and able to act only within the powers conferred by statute.
7 p.m.
The powers do not entitle the Assembly to override the general law. The clause confers on the Assembly the same functions as the Secretary of State now possesses. Those functions are
to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the arts, craft, sport and other cultural and recreative activities.
Those are the ordinary non-statutory powers or functions to which the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred. It means, for instance, that without such powers the Assembly would not be able to aid the National Museum of Wales, the Council of Museums in Wales or the National Library of Wales. It would not be able to give support to those organisations. It concerns the appointment of advisory bodies on the Welsh language, and it is the power which the Assembly would have to provide grants to support Welsh language publications.

Mr. Brittan: Is the Minister saying that the sole effect of the clause is to permit the Assembly to carry out the non-statutory powers of the Secretary of State and, I suppose, those which are conferred upon him by the Royal prerogative? If so, does he not agree that a lot of fears would be put at rest if, instead of the clause reading as it does now, there was a clause saying that the Assembly may act in this area to the extent that the Secretary of State at present may lawfully do so? Such a provision would make the position clear. At the moment, there is nothing to indicate that these provisions

are in any way limited to the powers at present exercised on a non-statutory basis by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Jones: I take the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The advice given to me and my reading of the Bill indicate that that is what it does. It confers on the Assembly the same functions relating to the subjects listed in Clause 10 as the Secretary of State is now able to exercise. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall take further advice on the matter. Should I accidentally have misled the House, I shall take steps to draw his attention to it so that corrective action might be taken. However, I am advised that it does nothing other than to confer on the Assembly the same functions as those possessed by the Secretary of State. Without such powers the Assembly would not be able to support many of the cultural organisations which the Secretary of State now supports, because his powers to do so are not statutory powers. For instance, the National Library of Wales is a Royal Charter body. Some such power is necessary.
If there is no safeguard as to how the Secretary of State now exercises these powers, why should it be necessary to put some sort of safeguard on a democratically-elected body? The new clause talks of "unreasonable prejudice". One can have unreasonably prejudiced individuals. In my time in the House I have referred to some Conservative Members as being unreasonably prejudiced, and on other occasions Conservative Members have probably referred to me in such terms. But we are not talking about individuals or about conferring functions and powers on individuals. We are talking of conferring functions and powers on a balanced Assembly elected in accordance with the wishes of the Welsh electorate. Therefore, I cannot see that the Welsh electorate would elect a Welsh Assembly which would be dominated by people with unreasonable prejudices. If one were to suggest such a thing it would be a slight on the intelligence of the electorate of Wales and on those elected.

Sir David Renton: Although the Assembly will lay down the policies, the detailed implementation of them will be carried out by officials of the Assembly, some of them quite minor officials. What


the Minister says must be applied not only to the democratically elected people who will be answerable to their electorate but to all the minor officials over whom the Assemblymen cannot hope to keep day-to-day control.

Mr. Jones: I would have thought that an elected Assembly of about 80 Members would find it easier to keep that sort of control on civil servants than would I as one Minister or my colleagues. If there is such a difficulty, it must be present now and the Assembly would add to the weapons for controlling and overcoming that difficulty.
Clause 10 gives powers to the Welsh Assembly to operate on behalf of Welsh people a wide range of powers related to the quality of life in Wales and, in the main, powers purely concerned with Welsh domestic affairs. It is, therefore, my view and that of the Government that the exercise of these functions can and should be left to the corporate wisdom of a democratically elected Welsh Assembly.
The hon. Member for Conway called for sanity and a balanced approach. The powers provided by Clause 10 enable that to be achieved, and the Assembly can be relied upon to achieve it.

Mr. Raison: In addition to the undertaking that the Minister has given to think about certain aspects of the clause, will he think about bringing in an amendment in another place which would embody the words which the Attorney-General used in a letter written to me? Those words, if they were written into the clause, even if they were not required legally, would remove some of the doubt. The Attorney-General said:
The powers conferred by the Clause do not include any power to impose legal duties or liability on the subject or to confer legally enforceable rights or immunities on the subject".
If a proviso could be written into the clause embodying what the Attorney-General says in that sentence. I should feel happier about Clause 10 passing on to the statute book.

Mr. Jones: There is always a danger that, if one opens the door a little, someone else will wish to push it open a little further. However, I take the point made by the hon. Member. After each day's debate, for the following couple of days, because of printing problems, we have

gone through the debate and tried to pick up any points which have been omitted. I have not seen the letter which the hon. Gentleman has received from the Attorney-General and would not expect to see it, as it is a letter from my right hon. and learned Friend to the hon. Gentleman. However, I shall examine the point raised by the hon. Gentleman again to see whether what he says is necessary. My advice is that it is not necessary because the fears that he has expressed are not real fears to be found in Clause 10. I shall look at the wording and the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Conway called for sanity and a balanced approach. That can be achieved by the existing provisions in Clause 10 and the Assembly can be relied upon to achieve it.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: As I said earlier, there are two major points with which we are concerned. We are all familiar with this type of clause that gives power to do anything. We are concerned that Clause 10 has developed and has reached a form where it appears to put no limitation and no inhibition on the Assembly.
We do not intend to deny to the Assembly any of the executive powers that are clearly necessary, but to seek an assurance from the Minister—and he has dealt with certain aspects of that assurance—that the Assembly cannot go beyond what we would consider to be its proper authority. We want to see some form of limitation, and we see no limitation upon the power that is contained in the clause to do anything.
The Minister mentioned the debate a similar clause in the Act which set up the Welsh Development Agency. But that clause says:
The Agency shall have power to do anything, whether in Wales or elsewhere, which is calculated to facilitate the discharge of their functions specified in subsection (3) above, or is incidental or conducive to their discharge.
Those functions are specified. Our point is that the power given in Clause 10 is not a subsidiary power or a conducive, facilitating power. It is labelled in the Bill as a principal function, and we are concerned that there should be some limitation upon it.
The other major point concerns discrimination. We have been told that we


should not introduce the question of discrimination on linguistic grounds and that it is best left alone. But, when we last debated the question of language and jobs in connection with the staffing of the Assembly, the Secretary of State accepted that there was concern. We all know that there is concern about linguistic divisions in Wales.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) implied that, through our new clause, we were trying to denigate or insult the Welsh language. I am a Welsh speaker, and that is the last thing that I wish to do. I mentioned earlier the possibility that there will be a preponderance of non-Welsh speakers in the Assembly. Our new clause seeks to protect the Welsh speaker and the non-Welsh speaker alike and to ensure fair-

ness between them in employment opportunities.

We have had an interesting debate. I said that I preferred the wording of Amendment No. 9, and I still feel that way, but I understand that it is not possible for us to vote on that amendment. If it should appear wise to another place to table an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 9, we should be very happy.

The only way that we can indicate our feelings on the need for some limitation of the power of the Assembly in the context of Clause 10 and the need for protection against discrimination is by voting for New Clause No. 4.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 243.

Division No. 196]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Adley Robert
Dunlop, John
James, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony
Jessel, Toby


Alison, Michael
Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Arnold, Tom
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Emery, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Eyre, Reginald
Kimbail, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Fairbairn, Nicholas
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Baker, Kenneth
Fairgrieve, Russell
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Banks, Robert
Farr, John
Knox, David


Bell, Ronald
Fell, Anthony
Lamont, Norman


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawson, Nigel


Biffen, John
Forman, Nigel
Le Merchant, Spencer


Biggs-Davidson, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Loveridge, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gardiner, Edwards (S Fylde)
Luce, Richard


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair
McCrindle, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Gorst, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Brooke, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
MacGregor, John


Brotherton, Michael
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil


Buck, Antony
Grieve, Percy
Mates, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Griffiths, Eldon
Mather, Carol


Bulmer, Esmond
Grist, Ian
Maude, Angus


Burden, F. A.
Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Patrick


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Churchill, W. S.
Hayers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Clegg, Walter
Hicks, Robert
Moate, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Higgins, Terence L.
Molyneaux, James


Cope, John
Hodgson, Robin
Monro, Hector


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Crouch, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Crowder F. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neave, Airey


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hurd, Douglas
Newton, Tony


Drayson, Burnaby
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Onslow, Cranley




Page, John (Harrow West)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Sainsbury, Tim
Tebbit, Norman


Page, Richard (Workington)
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Parkinson, Cecil
Scott, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D.


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Percival, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pink, R. Bonner
Shepherd, Colin
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sims, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Raison, Timothy
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wall, Patrick


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Spence, John
Wells, John


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rhodes, James R.
Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stanley, John
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Younger, Hon George


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stokes, John



Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stradling Thomas, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Mr, Anthony Berry and


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Lord James Douglas Hamilton.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor


Anderson, Donald
Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Ashton, Joe
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dewar, Donald
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alx
Judd, Frank


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Edge, Geoff
Kerr, Russell


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
English, Michael
Kinnock, Neil


Bates, Alf
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lambie, David


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamborn, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Loyden, Eddie


Bidwell, Sydney
Flannery, Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
MacCormick, Iain


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bradley, Tom
Freud, Clement
Mackintosh, John P.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maclennan, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. Provan)
George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gilbert, Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Madden, Max


Buchanan, Richard
Golding, John
Magee, Bryan


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Gould, Bryan
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Campbell, Ian
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cant, R. B.
Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mikardo, Ian


Carter, Ray
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cartwright, John
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Clemitson, Ivor
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moyle, Roland


Cohen, Stanley
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank



Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Newens, Stanley


Cowans, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Noble, Mike


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Oakes, Gordon


Crawford, Douglas
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cronin, John
Huckfield, Les
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Padley, Walter


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Park, George


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hunter, Adam
Parker, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurie


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Penhaligon, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice, Giles







Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Ward, Michael


Reid, George
Snape, Peter
Watkins, David


Richardson, Miss Jo
Spearing, Nigel
Watt, Hamish


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Roderick, Caerwyn
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Welsh, Andrew


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Stoddart, David
White, James (Pollok)


Rooker, J. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Whitlock, William


Roper, John
Swain, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


Rose, Paul B.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wlllams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Sandelson, Neville
Thompson, George
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thorne, Stan (Preston S)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sever, John
Tierney, Sydney
Woodall, Alec


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tomlinson, John
Woof, Robert


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Julius
Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mr. James Tinn.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause No. 5

WELSH DEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR RURAL WALES

'Nothing in this Act shall be construed as permitting the Assembly to exercise all or any of the functions of the Welsh Development Agency or the Development Board for Rural Wales or to dissolve either of those bodies.'—[Mr. Nicholas Edwards.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
On the seventh day of the Committee stage of the Bill, the guillotine prevented more than a passing reference to what I described then as the abolition or extermination clause, now numbered 60 in the amended Bill. That is the clause which, through a mist of peculiarly opaque parliamentary draftsmanship, enables the Assembly, if it can obtain the consent of the Secretary of State, to assume the powers of certain public bodies listed in a parliamentary answer on 16th March and to abolish those bodies. This House will note that it is not to be consulted about the matter.
These bodies that less than three years ago Parliament was told were essential, and which it was persuaded to set up, can be swept away at the nod of a Secretary of State's head, along with a number of other quite important organisations. Despite all the special reasons given in the House during the proceedings that established these agencies, and despite the assurances, specific and oft repeated,

given to the House about ministerial and parliamentary control, they can be swept aside as a result of a clause that has not even been discussed by the House of Commons.
Our new clause seeks to safeguard the position of two of them—the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. They have been established by statute. The case for their continued existence has been repeatedly stated by Government spokesmen. In our view, they should not be threatened by this back-door process of extermination. If at some future date they no longer seem to justify their existence, they should be abolished by legislative process in this House.
In a series of reckless speeches, the Secretary of State and his colleagues seek to create the impression that it is we on the Opposition Benches who threaten these organisations, yet as they make those speeches they force through without debate a clause that allows for the dissolution of these agencies without any reference to Parliament. It is the Secretary of State who is the potential executioner, not me.
Let me make our position quite clear. We approach these agencies moderately and reasonably. If the WDA and the DBRW are doing a useful job, by clearing away dereliction, by creating infrastructure or by stimulating investment and thus job creation, if they are filling a gap that others are failing to fill, we should allow them to continue their work.
False expectations have been raised about what these agencies can achieve. We fear that too often they back losers


rather than winners. We believe that from time to time they may actually destroy existing jobs, through subsidised competition, rather than create new jobs. None the less, as I made clear in a recent debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, we are relieved that the WDA has made a promising start and has gone a good way towards dispelling some of our earlier anxieties about the use to which it might be put. Both of the organisations seem to be making a determined attempt to base their investment decisions on commercial rather than political judgments. I can certainly see the advantage of seeking to operate regional policy at one remove from the political machine in this way.
As we made clear in "The Right Approach", we have no plans to abolish the WDA, though we should like to see greater safeguards to prevent the acquisition of profitable companies and to ensure the eventual disposal of shares held by the agency. I understand that these two restrictions would cause no difficulty at all to the agency as it is at present operating or as it intends to operate under its existing management.
As for the DBRW, we have never made a secret of the fact that we thought that there were disadvantages in having two separate bodies doing a job. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) will allow me to finish what I want to say about this organisation, because I want to set some of his fears at rest. We thought that there were disadvantages in having two separate bodies doing a job of a similar kind, with illogical boundaries and with a good deal of confusion and overlap.
We ourselves proposed a solution with the framework of the WDA. All that I have said is that after a year or two we really ought to look at the way it has worked in practice and see whether any changes in the boundaries or responsibilities would be sensible and would improve the effectiveness of our efforts in Mid-Wales. There is nothing sacred about the structure that the present Government have chosen, but I hold the view that once something is set up there have to be good and powerful reasons for making sweeping changes. I therefore say no more than that I think that the time may come when we shall want to see whether any improvements can be made that will benefit Mid-Wales.
I deliberately approach both of these agencies—as I did during our debate in the Welsh Grand Committee—with the hope that we can build a bipartisan approach to these matters—an approach that will endure and will therefore help to create the kind of industrial confidence that is to important for Wales and for investment in Welsh industry. That moderate and pragmatic approach has conjured up a predictable wave of hysteria and the wholly untrue assertion that we proposed to abolish these bodies or drastically to trim their functions. We have no such proposals to make. It is the Government and their Liberal supporters who, within three years of moving the Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency Bill, are drastically changing that organisation's relationship with central Government and theatening that it will cease to exist—because that is the effect of this Bill.

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman able to give the House an absolute assurance that the Conservative Party has no intention of allowing the Development Board for Rural Wales to be taken over by the WDA?

Mr. Edwards: I have made my position perfectly clear. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened to what I just said—

Mr. Hooson: I did listen.

Mr. Edwards: I said that I think that we should see how the DBRW performs. After a period of two or three years we should consider its performance and the way in which its responsibilities relate to those of the WDA, and see whether improvements can sensibly be made. I do not propose to go further than that now. It seems to me that, on the whole, that is a sensible way for Governments to approach these matters—not to make great dogmatic assertions at the Dispatch Box, provoked by interventions or otherwise, but to look at these questions in the light of experience, to try to learn from experience and to try to improve the operations of government in that way.
Our new clause would remove the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales from the scope of Clause 60 and the threat of abolition. The Assembly, operating the investment powers of the Agency,


would be bound to do so in an increasingly political manner, which would be economically damaging and likely to cause mounting dissension with the United Kingdom Government.
On Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill, on 26th June 1975, the Secretary of State referred to—boasted of, indeed—the powers of "general and specific direction", what he then described as "controlling powers". It is difficult to see how a Secretary of State who might exercise controlling powers in respect of an organisation for which he is responsible can exercise them without conflict when that organisation is not only possibly the responsibility of another Assembly but may actually be that Assembly itself, operating through its committee structure.

Mr. Dalyell: I am really very confused. I thought that these Assemblies were not to have anything to do with the running of the economy. I should have thought that any decision on the future of the WDA, or—I speak with diffidence in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick)—the Development Board for Rural Wales was basically an economic decision. Where is the line to be drawn?

Mr. Edwards: I shall come on to that question later. I would rather wait for that point in my speech. I intend to explain just how the Government have changed their position and decided to split up the responsibility.
The only curious difference that I would draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention is that, although there is a power in the Bill for the Assembly actually to take over the operations of the WDA with the Secretary of State's consent—and even to abolish it—I do not believe that such a power exists in relation to the Scottish Development Agency. Thus, a Scottish Bill contains legislative powers but does not enable the Scottish Assembly to take over or abolish the SDA, yet this Bill enables the Welsh Assembly to act in such a way towards the WDA. That is one of the obvious curiosities of this part of the Bill.
The suggestion that the Assembly or its committees could sensibly carry out

the functions of the Agency is in direct conflict with everything that the Secretary of State and his Ministers said during the passage of the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State cannot spare the time to be with us tonight, because I now intend to refer, fairly extensively, to what he then said. On 26th June 1975, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
I see the agency—and I underline the word 'agency'—as a strong executive arm, with the power to act for the benefit of Wales and with sufficient finance available to it. It is an additional piece of executive machinery".
It is hard to see how one can underline the word "agency" if its functions are to be carried on by a committee of an elected Assembly. In my judgment, an executive arm of government is the political arm; it is not an agency.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said later:
The agency will be expected to act on its own initiative to seek out opportunities and directly involve itself in industry. This type of entrepreneurial role is best performed by an agency."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 684, 693.]
We are entitled to ask how the Assembly is to involve itself directly in industry or to undertake an entrepreneurial role.
7.45 p.m.
In the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State to the WDA, we learn that
The Agency will be operating wholly in an assisted area
and that
a major part in the framing of its policies and initiatives
will inevitably be concerned with unemployment.
The guidelines say that these policies and initiatives
will have to be closely co-ordinated with those of the Government insofar as selective financial assistance under the Industry Act 1972 and other measures available to the Government for the steering of industry will frequently be involved in individual cases.
One is again bound to ask how that co-ordination will take place in the way envisaged in these guidelines when effectively different Governments will be operating a divided economic responsibility.
Also on Second Reading of the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill the Secretary of State said that
the agency has a big task. It will demand people of stature, strength and wide experience to carry it out. I intend that the board shall be composed of people of outstanding skills and experience rather than simply representatives of particular groups."—[Official Report, 26th June 1975; Vol. 894, c. 689.]
Once again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words are incompatible with what is now proposed.
Indeed, it is certain that if the functions of the agency were to be taken over by the Assembly it would be impossible to retain many of its existing staff or to recruit fresh people of outstanding skills and experience. It would be impossible to form commercial judgments and make investment decisions on a day-to-day basis in the manner prescribed for the agency if it were to be run as a political committee.
When setting up these new bodies, Ministers were, at least for a time, diverted from their usual rhetoric about democratic control and brought face to face with reality. The nominated bodies that they so often condemn are frequently established, as they then admitted, for very good reasons—because of a need for expertise, because some jobs are better performed if removed from political pressure, because elected members may be the least suitable persons to perform certain tasks.
Time and again, during the passage of the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill and the Development of Rural Wales Bill, Ministers talked eloquently of the need for expertise, for small effective bodies, for new and separate instruments.
During our debate on the WDA Bill, the Under-Secretary said:
The hon. Member said it was important to have a substantial measure of independence for the members of the agency. Of course it is. I do not think that anyone doubts that."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 24th July 1975, c. 328.]
He and his colleagues argued for a small body, for a carefully selected balance of personalities, for careful selection of the best talent. They gave assurances that politicians would not be giving directions every five minutes or concerning themselves with the minutiae of the Agency's affairs.
The guidelines talk about the need for the Agency to have
a large measure of operational and commercial freedom".
It is shocking—it is an abuse of Parliament—that a Government should go through this extraordinary exercise of stating objectives, of setting up new organisations, of explaining and justifying ministerial and parliamentary control over these agencies, as the Government did in the case of the WDA, the DBRW and the Land Authority, at the precise moment when they are preparing legislation which would reverse or make a mockery of everything that they are saying. At the very moment that the Under-Secretary was giving us those undertakings about the future operation of the Agency he was preparing the Bill, or his parliamentary draftsmen were doing so on his behalf.
I and others, including the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) challenged him on this point during those debates. We suspected that we were being misled and being asked to pass legislation on a false prospectus. We received a wholly evasive response, which confirmed our fears. They are now proved to be abundantly justified.
The proceedings on the Welsh Development Agency Bill and those that established the other two bodies were misleading and disreputable. Parliament was not well treated. It is not an episode in which the Ministers involved should take any pride.
Clause 60(2) contains the astonishing provision that the Assembly, with the consent of the Secretary of State, may modify any enactment that appears to it
to be necessary or expedient.
Thus Parliament has lavished time, care and energy on producing legislation that it thought appropriate, but legislation that can, in connection with these statutory bodies, be swept aside by an Assembly, with the Secretary of State's consent, though that Assembly has no primary legislative function.
That subsection on its own reduces to a meaningless charade every part of the proceedings on the Bills that I have described and makes the Ministers' assurances appear entirely worthless. That subsection, with the power to modify enactments, seems to open wide the


whole future role of the Assembly in economic management. Surely the implication is that the Assembly can not only take over the powers of the Agency but can seek to extend them and thus enlarge its role in economic management.
I shall be told—I have already heard it muttered from the Liberal Benches—that the Secretary of State's consent is required, but he has already shown himself to be a reed blown by the wind when he has sought to establish a firm position on the economic role of Government. He has been shifting his position, so that now it is difficult to know where he stands.
When the Government drew up the November 1975 White Paper, the intention was to build up the Secretary of State's responsibilities as an economic Minister—what the White Paper described as
an enhanced and very substantial economic role".
The problem was that those transferred economic powers were the very ones that the Assembly would covet most, and immediately the pressures within the Welsh Labour Party began. We know that there has been a great fight within the party on this matter. The November 1975 scheme lasted only until the following May, when the Government conceded control of the Agency to the proposed Assembly.
The economic aspirations of the Assembly will grow with time. They will not fade away. There is bound to be mounting tension in the relationship between the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government on the one hand and the Assembly on the other. It will arise, if for no other reason, because they are operating separate parts of an economic and industrial package—vital, integral parts, parts closely related together, as the guidelines make clear.
The aspirations of those who favour these developments were spelled out with devastating clarity by John Osmond in "Creative Conflict". In an interesting passage, he refers to some of the disputed areas of the Welsh Development Agency—its budget, its planning role, its investment and loan decisions and its return on capital—and says that they
would be sure to provide wide opportunities for debate within a Welsh Assembly. The

issues would be likely to be so contentious that an Assembly would not be content to allow the Agency to remain a semi-autonomous separate body. All the pressure would be for the Agency to be absorbed into the administrative machinery of the Assembly itself. This possibility was allowed for in the Devolution Bill and was canvassed by the Labour Party in Wales's Executive Committee as early as the summer of 1975".
He then quotes from the Committee, as follows:
It may happen in the future that the Assembly would wish to take over all functions of the Agency itself, with its actions being directly responsible to the Industrial Department and the Executive Committee [of the Welsh Assembly].
He continues:
One of the strongest arguments for devolution is that it would provide a focus for the political will that is necessary to give the Welsh Development Agency impetus, power and determination to tackle Wales's economic problems. The likelihood is that the Agency would have to be absorbed into the Assembly itself to facilitate the free flow of energy required.
whatever that may mean.
The concession of the Government
—this is the crucial point—
in May 1976 that the Agency should be an Assembly responsibility was a recognition of the economic dimension of devolution. At that point the Agency became an embryo department of an evolving Welsh government. The structure necessary to forge a Welsh economic policy was being created. Devolution is about the promotion of the political will to make the structure work.
So we are dealing here with the important matters. We are dealing with the continued independent existence of these agencies, the WDA and the DBRW. Their continued existence is likely to become a crucial factor in the fight that is already taking place for economic supremacy and the control of the Welsh economy.
We believe that it is wrong that these bodies should be subject to extermination by the Assembly. They should remain responsible to the Secretary of State and, through him, to this Parliament. Economic and industrial power should remain with the United Kingdom Government, and the provisions of Clause 60 in relation to the WDA and the DBRW are incompatible with that concept. It would be gravely damaging to the United Kingdom economy and to the economy of Wales if within these islands we were to have increasingly powerful independent Governments competing with each other for limited resources and for the available jobs.
We think that our shared problems are better tackled on a shared basis. It is significant and very regrettable that a Government who have professed that they wish to retain responsibility for United Kingdom economic affairs, and have argued so frequently and so recently that the agencies are essential weapons in their armoury, should now introduce legislation that threatens both the future existence of the agencies and their own powers of economic management.
The threat is implicit in the Bill as a whole. I commend the new clause as one barrier against some of its worst effects.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I am in no doubt about the purpose of the new clause. I am equally in no doubt why I set out on the road of supporting a Welsh Assembly. The very fact that we had so many appointed bodies spurred me on to want an elected body that would bring democratic control to many of our institutions in Wales.
Clause 60 provides that the Assembly can assume—it may assume—the functions of bodies such as the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. We in the Labour movement in Wales have for very many years been anxious to see that bodies such as these are brought directly under democratic control. They are answerable at present to a Minister. We can debate generally their functions and their activities but we are not keeping a sufficient scrutiny of the work that they undertake. We ought to have a body which has more time to look at them in greater detail.
We are dealing here simply with the WDA and the DBRW. Whether these bodies are answerable to the Assembly or whether they become an integral part of the Assembly must, in my opinion, be for the Assembly itself to decide. It should decide how to organise its work. I think that there is a case to be made for retaining some kind of board as an executive, and for that board being answerable to the Assembly. Nevertheless, I would leave the decision to the Assembly.
8.0 p.m.
I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) has shifted his ground somewhat in

recent days or weeks in regard to the Welsh Development Agency. After all that has been said against it, I am glad to see that he is now the first to defend it. What was said in the Welsh Grand Committee seemed to place some doubt over the future of the DBRW, and he has again shifted his ground and is anxious to defend that body.
I should like to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the WDA will not suffer the same fate as the Scottish Development Agency is promised by the Tory Party, if it is ever returned to power, because I understand that the Tory Party is on record as saying that it would abolish the Scottish Development Agency. I understand that the Welsh Tories do not follow this line in regard to the Welsh Development Agency, but how can we accept their assurances? They will not be taking the decision, surely. It will be a decision taken by the national party.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: May I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman's remarks? First, I have not shifted my position on the DBRW. I said in the debate that we must look at the matter after two or three years' experience to see how it was working out in practice. I said something rather similar to that this afternoon.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong in his remarks about the Scottish Development Agency. There is no party commitment to abolish the agency. Indeed, there is a clear statement in "The Right Approach" and by the spokesmen on Scottish Affairs that the SDA will be retained.

Mr. Roderick: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I have obviously believed what I read in the Press. Certainly I am glad to have that assurance, because I would hate to think that it was Tory Party policy that the Agencies should be abolished.
As for the DBRW, I remember the hon. Gentleman trying his best to entice me into a certain Lobby one night in this Chamber to support a proposal to have not a board but rather a subcommittee of the Agency to run affairs in the rural area. It was simply to be a part of the Welsh Development Agency. I am glad that I resisted the temptation, because ultimately we had a separate


board, which was what I wanted, to look after what was needed in the rural area of Wales or certain parts of Mid-Wales at least.
These appointed bodies having been set up, I felt that this was only an interim stage, anyway, and that ultimately something would have to be done about controlling them. We now have the opportunity, with the Assembly, to finalise the Act, so to speak. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I cannot possibly look at the work of these bodies in detail because we have so many other things on our plate, but I hope that the Assembly will have the time and the resources to look at these Agencies.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Gentleman not see some difference between giving the Assembly the right of supervision over bodies such as these and giving it the right to dissolve them or to take over their functions? Does he see no distinction?

Mr. Roderick: I do, indeed. There is a big distinction. Nevertheless, if the Assembly felt that it could undertake this work, I would be quite happy for it to do so, because then there would be elected representatives running the show. We are talking about public money here. It is we, the public, who will provide the funds. Surely, therefore, these bodies must be directly answerable to the public.
I do not detract at all from the work that the Agencies are doing at present. I think that they are doing an excellent job. Nevertheless, it is difficult for the public to have any say in what is going on. This is why I would reject the new clause, and I hope that the House will reject it. I think it is important that we should go on with the work of introducing democracy at every level of our life.

Sir Raymond Gower: What the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) said makes me very apprehensive indeed about the future of these bodies.

Mr. Hooson: Do not say that.

Sir R. Gower: I acknowledge that when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) introducing the new clause, I though that perhaps he might be exaggerating the

danger, but, having listened to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, it is all too apparent to me that the danger is very real indeed, if that is the thinking behind the clause as it stands.
I had assumed that the very use of the word "may" made it unlikely that this power to take over these bodies would ever be exercised. Many of us who started off with perhaps some anxiety about these bodies—and perhaps even those who were a little more optimistic about them—have had cause to feel very gratified by the way in which the Welsh Development Agency in particular has progressed. I believe that the same can also be said of the DBRW, although I cannot speak with such authority in that respect. These bodies have laid the foundations, I believe, of some significant achievement, It is bound to be a slow job, of course.
The two bodies include persons of considerable expertise in industry and of considerable experience in the matters which have been conferred upon them by Parliament. As the months and years go by, their knowledge and expertise in the exercise of their functions will increase. It would be very foolish, therefore, to put this expertise at risk by having these bodies taken over by an elected body which may have no expertise at all. I think it has been said that the worst body to run a campaign is an elected committee. That is possibly true also of industry.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Welsh Development Agency is run by a committee, and it is a committee of experts. But the point is that, although they are experts in their own fields, in individual industries and in commerce, they may not be the most expert people for deciding what is needed in each part of Wales. That is why we need a greater interface between democratic control and expert knowledge.

Sir R. Gower: I hope that they would have some prospect of continuity in their position. An elected body can never have that assurance of continuity. As I was saying, the persons on these bodies have very great experience. I have in mind, for example, Mr. Gray, who was formerly associated with the Board of Trade in Wales. These persons have very special talents in dealing with the matters which confront them, and it is desirable that


they should have the prospect of continuity for some period ahead and not be limited by the exigencies of elections every three or four years.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is confused about this matter. As I understand the position, Mr. Gray, is the Chief Executive and is in the same position, therefore, as a civil servant.

Sir R. Gower: Yes.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman is getting confused. No one is suggesting that the Assembly should take over the job of the Chief Executive.

Sir R. Gower: I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. But there are other people involved, and they have greater continuity now than they could conceivably have if they were subject to the changes of fortune of parties in an Assembly. I would have hoped that we might have an assurance that this power, even as it stands, would be used only in the most extraordinary circumstances. But it appears from the remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor that it is very likely that at an early date the Assembly would be disposed to take over these bodies.

Mr. Roderick: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I said that it must be for the Assembly to decide. I do not know what the Assembly would do. I know what my preferences would be, but who am I to impose my will on the Assembly?

Sir R. Gower: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but it did not sound like that when he was making his speech.

Mr. Geraint Howells: He was very convincing.

Sir R. Gower: Yes, he was very convincing about who would take them over.
I am very impressed by the management of these bodies. I am impressed by the way in which they have started. I believe that they need a long period of stability. They need to have an assurance of stability for a considerable time ahead. I do not think it is desirable that they should be buffeted and exposed to the uncertainties of management by an Assembly, because while an Assembly has the advantage of demo-

critic management it will also be much more subject to the sort of pressures which are not necessarily an advantage in organisations of this kind. I am thinking of political pressures and so on.
These bodies should exercise objective rather than subjective judgments. They should not have judgments forced upon them—

Mr. Wigley: Surey the objectives of the Welsh Development Agency, it being a body in the public sector, must be objectives that are set with a total community and social measuring rod rather than a purely commercial one.

Sir R. Gower: I do not think for a moment that the bodies as they are today are using purely commercial judgments. I am quite convinced that they go well beyond that. The hon. Gentleman must surely know that they are aware of their remit, which is much wider than ordinary commercial judgment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has expressed our anxieties as well as the undesirability of having in the Bill a clause as loose as Clause 60. It is very necessary to remove this doubt. That is why I support the new clause, which would make the takeover impossible.

Mr. Dalyell: I resisted the temptation to take part in the last debate on the Welsh language. It would have been embarrassing to have done so. But I am not in the least embarrassed about taking part in this debate, because it is a matter for any United Kingdom Member of Parliament.
I believe that we are sowing the seeds of very great trouble. This is not a minor matter. It is a deep, pivotal, basic confusion that pervades both the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. Indeed, it is once again a geological flaw in the Bill which again shows how its concept is built on shifting sand.
I am in no mood to be told by anybody that I am making a Second Reading speech, because this is basic to the whole question. The reason why it is basic is that the question has not been answered about the role of these Assemblies. Are they to be involved in economic decision-making or not? This is where a number of pro-devolutionists—not only hon. Friends, but others—are trying to have


their cake and eat it or, to be a bit sharper about it, to speak out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
At one level we are told "Oh, no, the House of Commons and the whole structure of British Government need not bother, because no economic powers are involved." Yet, whenever they go to a different audience—albeit an audience which is perhaps favourable to the views of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)—these people say that the Assemblies will solve all sorts of problems, especially economic problems. I have just come from the hustings, and very interesting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not in Committee. I think he will understand what I mean.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: In one phrase I would say that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should have heard the claims that were made about these Assemblies. Doubtless similar claims will be made in the Coal Exchange. There was very little reticence on the part of pro-devolutionists when they made claims as to how the major problem in the minds of the Scottish people—as it is of the Welsh people—namely, unemployment, will be helped by these Assemblies.
Someone has got to get it straight precisely what the economic role is. I know there are difficulties about quoting the other place, but during a Division I wandered along there to hear the Lord Vaizey, an Oxford economist, tearing to pieces the Scotland Bill with regard to this matter. There was nothing that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in the other place could say in answer.
The truth is that there is a basic, deep confusion about whether the Assemblies are to have an economic role. The one thing that is certain is that one cannot have it both ways. Therefore, I put a very direct question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. Can he, on this forty-third day, clear up whether or not the Assemblies are to have an economic role? There is a very simple answer to that. It is either "Yes" or "No". Somehow we have not quite understood it.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman said that in the elections that were held yesterday members of his own party in Scotland were pressing the strong economic powers that the Scottish Assembly will have. Does he ascribe the relative success of his party in those elections to pressing that point, particularly in the context of the situation 12 months ago when the Scotland and Wales Bill was in tatters?

Mr. Dalyell: I have to report that in my own constituency those candidates who are even more anti-Assembly than I am did extremely well at the polls. I make not too much of that. But my one colleague who was pro-devolution did not do nearly as well as the rest. I do not draw any general conclusions from that. All I suggest is that being very scathing and aggressive about the need for an Assembly did not cost my colleagues votes at the local elections. I shall leave it at that.
There is, of course, a practical consideration with regard to the Lords. I suspect that my noble Friend Lord Raglan—a Welsh Lord and chairman of a new town development corporation—will have something to say on these matters. I represent part of a new town. The question is whether the Welsh Assembly is to have the kind of economic control over new towns which has previously been associated with the Treasury.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I left out a passage in my speech in which I had originally intended to refer to new towns. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under Clause 60 the Assembly may take over the functions and dissolve new town corporations?

Mr. Dalyell: Dissolving or not dissolving new town corporations is an economic act vitally affecting the United Kingdom Treasury. That is, therefore, yet another manhole and another confusion.
I turn in the friendliest of spirits to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). If he were a Member of an Assembly—being an active man and a good Member of Parliament—is it conceivable that he would not demand these powers? He tells us that we should emphasise that the Assembly "can". In this context I think that the word "can" is a euphemism, because


any Member of Parliament worth his salt—and my hon. Friend is manifestly worth his salt—would assume that. He would not sit down and say "Of course, we should not have these powers." If he did, certain people in his valley would ask what he was doing.

Mr. Roderick: Does not my hon. Friend acknowledge that every conceivable kind of body puts pressure upon us for more powers? It would not be simply Assemblies that would do so. Councils do it. Pressure groups of all kinds are formed to get more powers, but they are allowed more powers only with the authority of the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Parliament".] The Secretary of State through Parliament. I am not afraid of the Assembly pressing for more powers.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not think that my hon. Friend is afraid of the Assembly pressing for more powers, because he might want it to do so, but I say to him in a friendly spirit that it might go a great deal further than he wants. Once one concedes certain powers in this area, one has to concede others. The return question is "All right. Where do we draw the line?" The Assembly is not a local authority. Comparisons between the Welsh Assembly and a local authority are misleading because here we are harnessing national aspirations—I do not know what else they are—which makes the Assembly very different, from a local authority.
Therefore, I stick to my point that Assemblymen, if they have half the energy and drive of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, would hardly be content to allow a situation in which, when they were able to assume more powers, they did not do so.
I put one more question to my Front Bench. It has been revealed in another place—I had no notion of it during the passage of the Scotland Bill in this House—that of course these Assemblies can set up committees on any subject they please. When my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill was pressed on the matter—and I make no apology for repeating it—he said that the answer was "Yes". He said that the Scottish Assembly could have

a defence committee or a foreign affairs committee—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State realises that—and no doubt, if it can have a foreign affairs committee, it can have an economic committee.
So an economic committee on a non-devolved subject is thus set up. It has to justify itself. It has to have something to do. Is it conceivable that it would do other than press for precisely the kind of powers we are talking about in New Clause No. 5? Therefore, I say that this is a slippery slope stemming from a fundamental confusion in the Bill.

Mr. Nick Budgen: One of the stranger practices of the House as I observe it is that. whenever the Government of the day appear to be handing out one of their discretionary grants, whether under the regional aid programme or under the Industry Act 1972, there is a tendency for those Members whose constituencies are the direct beneficiaries of the largesse of the taxpayers generally sometimes to thank the Minister, sometimes to complain that it is not enough, while, on the other hand, the broad mass of Members rarely seem to take any part in the discussion of the benefit that is going to any particular part of the United Kingdom.
Yet that situation seems to me wholly illogical, for a benefit to one part is a disadvantage certainly to the parts immediately around it, and is also a disadvantage to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom and, indeed, to the economy of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, New Clause No. 5 goes to the heart of our consideration of the Bill because it decides whether there should be an economic role for the Welsh Assembly.
If the Assembly is to have an economic role, as the hon. Gentleman says, no doubt it will wish to take on the role of the Welsh Development Agency and the role of the Development Board for Rural Wales. Here, I disagree in part with the emphasis put on this matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). He said that we are talking about the future of these bodies. We are not talking about the bodies themselves—we are talking most of all about the functions that they exercise. That is the thing—not the name, not even the subject, not even the experience. We


are talking about their functions in potentially distorting the economy of the United Kingdom in favour of Wales.
It is their function, for example, to give extra grants to various industries in Wales. It is their function to give extra infrastructure in Wales. It will be for them to think of ways in which they can benefit even individual parts of Wales, or perhaps the whole of Wales. Yet the custom is that the general attitude of other Members in this House ought to be "Lucky old you. You have had a bit of a handout."
But the reality is that any such hand out at least has to add to the public sector borrowing requirement. If we have an irresponsible Government, that leads to more inflation because the money is printed. If we have, as I concede we have in general at present, a financially responsible Government, it perhaps leads to cuts in public expenditure, although that seems to be less likely, or to increased tax, or to higher interest rates, with all the disincentive that that brings.
So it is right that hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom should considers and consider carefully, any proposal to give economic advantage to a constituent part of the United Kingdom, and indeed it is perhaps right that I should be allowed to say something on behalf of my constituents, for the West Midlands has been gravely disadvantaged over the years by a succession of Governments imposing their regional policies upon it and the South-East.
It is always thought that policies designed to benefit, let us say, Scotland, or Northumberland or Durham affect only Scotland, or Northumberland or Durham. No such thing. The policy of restricting factory and office development in the West Midlands has been to give a disadvantage to the West Midlands, and, it has been hoped, a compensating advantage to those areas which were formally areas of a higher level of unemployment and a lower level of prosperity than the West Midlands.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the West Midlands, while losing as he has suggested, has gained a great deal from Wales, especially through the forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Welsh people, providing the West Midlands with labour

—very often the cheapest labour that it had?

Mr. Budgen: I am a Unionist. I want the Union to continue. I applaud above all the reciprocal advantages that the Union has given to us. Of course what the hon. Gentleman says is true. We have benefited each other in the United Kingdom in peace and war, and in numerous and frequently referred to ways.

Sir David Renton: In partnership.

Mr. Budgen: Of course it is a partnership of benefit to us all. We are talking now of an Assembly which is being put forward as a means of placating the forces of separatism. Therefore, if we have to consider this on the basis of a partially separatist philosophy, those areas around Wales that are likely to be disadvantaged by any attempt to give economic advantages to Wales should consider their position.
My basic proposition is that the West Midlands have been gravely disadvantaged by regional policies in recent years. I make no party point about this. Successive Governments of all variations of political hue have damaged the West Midlands by their regional policies. But it would be even worse—it would be compounding that felony—if the situation arose in which the people of Wales, through their subordinate Parliament, their Assembly, were able to assume an economic role and to give to themselves even greater advantages than would be accorded to them by the United Kingdom Parliament.
I, as a loyal member of my party, accept that my party has said that it will accept the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales on what I hope I can reasonably describe as a provisional basis. After a couple of years we shall have a look and see, on perhaps a more practical than philosophical basis, whether those bodies have performed the functions that their proponents allege they have been set up to do.
8.30 p.m.
If those functions—and it is the functions about which I am concerned—are to be exercised at all, in fairness to the United Kingdom taxpayer and in fairness to those once-prosperous regions that are so close to the border of Wales, they


should be exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales, responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament, and should ultimately be exercised not in the narrow sectional interests of Wales alone but in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is for those reasons that I support the new clause.

Mr. Hooson: The dichotomy of the Conservative Benches is very interesting. As I listen to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) and others speaking during these debates I gather that it is their view that Wales will be disadvantaged by the Assembly, and yet the view of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is clearly that Wales has a potentially unfair advantage in having an Assembly. He thinks that the economic benefit that might be derived from the Assembly will be such that it will be unfair to his constituency in Wolverhampton, South-West, which is not very far from the Welsh border. I wish that Conservative Members would make up their minds which viewpoint is the official one on this matter.
I find this whole problem one of considerable difficulty. I was tempted to support the new clause, until I heard the hon. Member for Pembroke moving it. I tell him frankly that I think there is greater danger of the removal of the Development Board for Rural Wales, which is of great importance to Wales, if the new clause is carried than if it is not.
The hon. Gentleman said in the Welsh Grand Committee:
The third detailed point that I wish to make is that nothing that has happened so far inclines those of us who sit on these benches to change our mind about our belief that the Rural Development Board should not have been separated as it has been from the Agency. Certainly we shall want to look at that again."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 23rd January 1978; c. 27.]
The hon. Gentleman virtually repeated that statement today, using words similar to those that he used in the Welsh Grand Committee; namely, that the matter should be looked at again in two or three years' time. The Development Board for Rural Wales is under direct threat from the hon. Gentleman, and when I interrupted him today I was hoping to have an assurance that that was not so. Had

I received that assurance I might have taken a different view about this matter, but no such assurance was given.
Nothing could be worse than to make the Development Board for Rural Wales as it were a sub-committee of the Welsh Development Agency. The Board is what it sets out to be. It is specifically charged with priming the pump and developing the rural areas, particularly those in Mid Wales that suffered enormously from depopulation. The Welsh Development Agency, on the other hand, has far greater responsibilities for the industrial areas. Its slant is different. Its thrust is different, and I see no case for amalgamating those bodies or for making one a subsidiary or a committee of the other.
I know that the hon. Gentleman might not do that if he ever had the power to do so, and he has made that clear. On the other hand, he has also made clear from what he said in January and today that he would be minded to do that.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I really do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can talk about direct threats when all that I have said is that I would like to see how organisations work in practice, and in the light of their experience, see if any improvements can be made. His accusation is a gross misuse of language.

Mr. Hooson: If he had no such intention the hon. Member would not have used such generalised words. He would have been more specific. The words "to see what improvements can be made" could mean anything. And when one marries that to the actual words he used in January, that nothing had made him change his mind about the belief that the rural development board should not have been separated, as it has been, from the Agency, what other conclusion could any reasonable person reach?

Sir Anthony Meyer: Would the hon. and learned Member not concede that there are disadvantages flowing from the fact that the remit of the Development Board for Rural Wales covered only certain parts of rural Wales, whereas the problems of rural Wales cry out to be dealt with as a whole? The problems of industrial Wales are dealt with as a whole by the Development Agency.

Mr. Hooson: The Development Board for Rural Wales is young. It is all very well for the hon. Member to complain that its remit extends only to a limited area. Had it been left to his party we would not have had a rural development board at all. It is all very well now to say that its area should be larger. That was not the ground on which the Conservative Party opposed the setting up of the Board.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Hooson: I must make some progress, otherwise Mr. Deputy Speaker will be very cross with me.
I want to look at the problem involved here, because there is a basic problem which has been little masked by what has been said so far. Clause 60 provides the powers, if the Secretary of State agreed with them, for the functions of certain of these bodies to be taken over by the Assembly.
I believe that the Welsh Development Agency should be responsible to the Assembly. It should be a separate organisation, with its affairs discussed and debated at the Assembly. It is a wrong principle that bodies like the Development Agency should go on in their own sweet way, and that the way in which they carry out their functions should not be generally the subject matter for public debate.
That is one of the functions that the Assembly could perform. There should be an accountability. Indeed, there are bodies that are accountable to this House, but we do not try to perform their functions. To whom is the Welsh Development Agency responsible? Nobody, really, except the Minister.
It might be said that it is accountable to this House. But the truth is that we have discussed the Welsh Development Agency only once in the Welsh Grand Committee. We have an annual report, I agree. But there should be at least a couple of debates each year on the functions of the Development Agency. I cannot remember our having a debate on the Development Board for Rural Wales since it was set up. As has already been pointed out, we have only once had a debate on the Arts Council in Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee.
This shows that there is a function that the Assembly can perform, and it is a very important function when related to the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Personally I would like to see the Development Board more accountable to county councils because of the areas in which it functions. Even Cardiff is too remote for the accountability of the Board.
Presumably, no function of the Development Agency or the Development Board can be taken over without the Secretary of State's consent. I can understand why this power is given, because, if the Welsh Assembly is to develop, it is bound to do so in a certain way. I have no doubt that before long, the Development Board will have its area extended, whatever the political complexion of the Government. These bodies are set up and they grow. When the Secretary of State first had this power he simply took over powers which had been in the hands of the Minister who was responsible for local government at the time, and various functions were added by different Governments. Health functions were added by one Government, educational functions by another and the system evolved in that way. The same will occur with the Development Agency. The fact that its powers will evolve does not mean that it will become an agency for separatism or anything of the kind.
The House would like to be assured by the Minister that the Government do not intend in the near future to consent to any such takeover of functions. It is a different matter altogether whether it will do so in five, 10 or 15 years' time. It is difficult to return to this House for powers, because one has to join the legislative queue. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in taking powers which may eventually be exercised. If the hon. Member for Pembroke were Secretary of State, I understand that he would have no intention at present of consenting to a takeover of those powers, but the position may be different in 10 or more years' time.

Sir David Renton: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman understood the full implications of his remarks? Does he not realise that by giving the Secretary of State power to hand over these two important bodies to the Welsh Assembly


without having to ask this House for an affirmative resolution or giving the House the opportunity to annul the order, he is creating a situation that the House should not accept because it is this House which, in the last resort, by voting the money, will enable either the Welsh Development Agency or the Development Board for Rural Wales to carry on at all, or to enable the Assembly to carry on on its behalf? If the House is to have the responsibility of voting the money ultimately, it should meanwhile have the responsibility of saying whether such a change should take place at all.

Mr. Hooson: I understand that view, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman stops to analyse the matter he will appreciate that we have delegated powers to many non-democratic bodies, to Ministers, their Departments, and so on, and this House never hears about those powers. But in this case we are delegating power to an Assembly. That elected Assembly will be responsible for the exercise of its functions. I know my fellow countrymen and I do not believe that they would elect to the Assembly people who will not discharge their democratic responsibility in a fair and proper way. There may be a difference of political view, but it will be no different from the position in this House. I fail to understand the fears expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He appears to be arguing against any form of devolution at any time.

Sir D. Renton: No, that is not so.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that his constituents would be at a disadvantage. I thought that he made out an excellent case for devolution to the West Midlands.

Mr. Budgen: No, I did not.

Mr. Hooson: I would have a great deal of sympathy with that view. The hon. Member suggested that the West Midlands would be at a disadvantage if Wales were devolved and the West Midlands were not.
I have said enough to make clear that I intend to vote against the amendment, although I believe the Minister should make clear the Government's view on the discharge of this function and

give the Secretary of State's view about the timing of any changeover.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I did not intend to participate in this part of the debate but I do so as certain misgivings have been aroused. When the Welsh Development Agency Bill passed through the House, there was a division among the parties. In the early stages, Conservative Members did not accept the idea of a Welsh Development Agency. However, now that the Bill has become an Act, I think that they have been persuaded to recognise that the Agency is performing a first-class function in Wales.
We should remind ourselves that its functions were

"(a) to further the economic development of Wales or any part of Wales;
(b) to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness in Wales;
(c) to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of Wales; and
(d) to further the improvement of the environment in Wales (having regard to existing amenity)."

I believe that the Agency has performed a first-class job. It has issued its first report, which covers a period of longer than 18 months.
We have heard a great deal about nominated bodies and the need for such bodies to be more accountable. The people whom we bring to the board of the Welsh Development Agency should be those with industrial expertise. That should be the qualification. I do not think that it makes the Agency any more democratic to suggest that its board members should be elected or be candidates for election to the Assembly and then be put on the board to run the Agency.

Mr. Budgen: The element of democratic control is exercised by the Secretary of State, who has ultimate responsibility. The Secretary of State is in turn responsible to the House.

Mr. Evans: I was about to make that point. I was saying that on the board of the Agency we have people with industrial experience from trade unions, industry and the CBI in Wales. They have expertise. They have acted as a board in the year or so that the Agency has been


operating. The Agency has done a first-class job. The Agency is answerable to the Secretary of State, who is in turn answerable to the House. Therefore, there is democratic accountability. If we find that the Secretary of State is exercising his powers by appointing board members whom we think unsuitable, it is up to us as Members of Parliament to let the Secretary of State know on the Floor of the House, in the Welsh Grand Committee or in correspondence that we take the view that he is not putting the best people on the board. In that sense there is accountability.
I hope that when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies he will be able to give us certain assurances. It has already been suggested that the Agency should be run by the Assembly. As I understand it, it is not one of the powers to be devolved to the Assembly. I understood that the Agency would continue to be administered by the Secretary of State and that it would be answerable to the House.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: That was the original proposal in November 1975. However, in May 1976 the Government issued a supplementary White Paper in which they handed over full responsibility for the Agency to the Assembly.

Mr. Evans: If that is so, it has not been written into the Bill. Clause 37 is headed "Industrial and economic guidelines". I accept that there are industrial and economic guidelines, but there is not the transfer of the power to administer the Agency. The Agency is responsible to the Welsh Office and will continue to be so. It will not be responsible to the Assembly.

Mr. Edwards: No doubt the Minister will clarify the position, but I think that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) misunderstands it. As a consequence of this legislation, I believe that the Development Agency will be responsible to the Assembly but that the Secretary of State will still be issuing guidelines under the powers granted in Clause 37.

Mr. Evans: We need clarification about this. The whole argument has been that we could devolve certain powers to the Welsh Assembly while maintaining the economic and political unity of the

United Kingdom. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. It will create a weakness if we put the running of the WDA under the Assembly.
At the moment, funds are granted to the Agency by the House of Commons. We have been in the happy situation in Wales so far—no doubt due to the good management of the Agency—that not all the funds allocated have been taken up. But in future, if the Agency has to be covered by the block grant to the Assembly, that would be a retrograde step.
We tend to think of economic and industrial investment in terms of the needs of the regions. Where the need is greater, we say that the investment should be greater. The need is certainly greater in Wales. There is also greater dereliction in Wales because of effects of the industrial revolution, because of the spoil heaps in South Wales and the slate quarries in North Wales. This adds up to a sensible argument in favour of Wales getting a higher proportion than other regions of the money provided to deal with this problem. But if the Agency and similar bodies, such as the Rural Development Board, are to be put under the auspices of the Assembly, does that mean that their financial requirements will have to be satisfied from the Assembly's block grant?
I understand the desire to make all these nominated bodies democratically accountable, but I believe that that could be done without establishing all the paraphernalia of a Welsh Assembly. The Development Agency has got off to a good start, but if we are to make it responsible to the Asesmbly we shall create unnecessary uncertainties.
Government money is allocated to Wales according to definite criteria which determine where the assistance should go. When the Assembly is established, will the allocation of funds be determined on the basis of political muscle in the Assembly? After all, the Assembly will be dominated by Glamorgan and Gwent, because that is where the majority of the population in Wales lives. Are we now to have some pressure brought on the Welsh Development Agency rather than leaving it to determine the industrial and economic criteria about where industry is to go? Are such matters now to be determined by the tact that certain


people are in a position to exercise more influence on decisions?
The present arrangement whereby the Welsh Development Agency is answerable to the Government through the House has worked well. We can argue about whether certain powers will be devolved to the Assembly, but, if we are further to devolve economic powers, what financial arrangements should we make? Will it be said that the amount of finance that the Assembly shall receive will not be affected by such a decision? If so, that means that we shall have created a spending body with no ability to raise finance. We are electing people not to raise money but simply to spend it. If we are to give to the Welsh Assembly the power to tell the Welsh Development Agency what to spend, does it mean that there will not be any accountability in regard to the financial demands? This matter needs clarification. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can put my mind at rest.
I believe that the Welsh Development Agency is doing a good job. It would be better if the Agency were to be accountable to the House, where the funds are, just as the National Enterprise Board is accountable to the House and as, I hope, will be the Scottish Development Agency and other development agencies which might be established in other parts of the country. We should not try to constrain and confine the activities of the Welsh Development Agency by tying it to the block grant that is allocated by the House to the work of the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), as he often does, has made a sensible speech based on sound common sense—the common sense that will mean that the entire time we have spent on the Bill has been utterly wasted.
The only thing to be said for the Bill is that it has got in the way of the Government's bringing forward other legislation which might be more damaging to the nation as a whole than that which we are debating. Nevertheless, we shall spend about £500,000 on this wretched referendum, only to arrive at the conclusion about which we all know, anyway.
The new clause and the arguments aroused by it have demonstrated why there will be a "No" vote. There is a question of conflict, which runs all the way through the Bill.
Clause 60 promotes the idea that the Welsh Assembly will be able to take over the powers of the Development Agency and of the Development Board for Rural Wales. In passing, as an indication of lack of common sense, I regret to say that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hopson) took some beating. He complained that we were not debating—at least twice a year it seemed to me—the work of every nominated body in Wales, particularly the Board. When his party had a choice of what we would debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, it chose the Arts Council, for which we have no responsibility, and did not choose to debate the Board.
As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, the Welsh Assembly will demand the right to run these agencies and boards. It will have virtually nothing else to do, that is, unless it is to take over the day-to-day powers of the local authorities. We have been assured time and again that the Welsh Assembly will not take over the powers of the local authorities. What is it to do? Will not such a nationally elected body, with all its prestige, want to take over those nationally appointed bodies that come under it?
9.0 p.m.
Will the Assembly not also want to be responsible for the Welsh Development Agency? Of course it will and that will be the first pressure that any Secretary of State for Wales will be coming under.
What happens then? It is possible that he may agree to give the Assembly the powers of the Agency. We have heard from the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) how he would like to see the powers of the Agency used by a politically motivated Assembly rather than an Agency the board of which is manned by industrialists and trade unionists who are appointed for their expertise to use their overall judgment over the whole of Wales, taking note of unemployment, as one of their functions, but not favouring this or that place in Wales.
An elected political body is bound to take note of those specifics that accord with the power of individual Assemblymen, the Prime Minister or chief executive and his Ministers. I have no doubt that the power of the Agency will be used to benefit those areas where the greatest influence can be brought to bear by the politicians of the Assembly. If that happens, the question of where the funds come from arises. If the Assembly is seen to be operating in that way, this House, which will be responsible for raising the money for the Assembly, will prove particularly sticky.
What will be the role of Welsh Members in the House who will be putting forward the demands of the Assembly for money when they can see in their own backyards the misapplication of funds? It may be said that the funds will not be misapplied. If so, why should the Assembly be responsible for the Agency? It is either necessary or it is not. If it is politically necessary, I think that it is politically damaging.
There is another obvious way in which conflict may arise between the Assembly and this House. Suppose this place had a Conservative Government and the Assembly, which was not Conservative, told the Secretary of State that it wanted to take over the functions of the Welsh Development Agency. The Secretary of State would say "Not on your life. I shall not allow you to operate in the Welsh economy contrary to the economic principles and practices of the Conservative Government."
What would be the reaction of the Assembly, elected as a national body with all the prestige and power, the newness and excitement of that body? Would it not be to further the aims of nationalism and divisiveness in the United Kingdom? Is that not why, all along, nationalist Members have supported economic powers for the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Assemblies not just say that they were insulted by any decision that did not suit their interests?

Mr. Grist: Of course. That is what both these Bills are about. I believe that when the Wales Bill is put to the people, it will be rejected, and I hope, with increasing optimism, that the same will occur in Scotland. Yesterday's local government election results have set the

pattern for what is coming later in the year.
What a waste of time for us all, and what a peril to the United Kingdom.

Sir A. Meyer: The debate has been remarkable for one of the rare interventions of the Secretary of State's silent nightingale, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick). It is always nice to hear the hon. Gentleman, but we do not hear him very often. Indeed, his interventions are almost as rare as the appearances of the Secretary of State at our debates.
Of course, after the Secretary of State's bruising experiences when he last attempted to intervene in our debates, perhaps his absence is not so surprising. It may be that that experience accounts for the fact that we have heard little so far about the iniquity of these nominated bodies stuffed with Tory nominees and so on. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) about the better way of securing democratic control over these nominated bodies. His sentiments will be echoed from both sides of the House. The way to do this is by strengthening the machinery of the House in its dealings with the activities of these bodies.
I have few words to say in this debate. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor let the cat out of the bag when he made it plain how much he expected the Assembly to extend its economic activities. I try to convince myself that the Assembly, exercising the economic powers which it will clearly attempt to exercise, will be better able than the Welsh Development Agency as at present constituted to uphold the interests of Wales as a whole and to forward the economic development of Wales.
If people are to be appointed to the board of the Agency on the ground of their acceptability to the Assembly rather than because of their qualifications for the job—and there will be conflicts between qualification for the job and acceptability to the Assembly—will the Agency be better able to ensure maximum development in the creation of jobs for Wales? Will such an Agency thus controlled by the Assembly have more appeal to those foreign investors who are so vital to the future of Wales?
A recent authoritative study demonstrated how many jobs in Wales come from foreign investment. Foreign investors are less concerned about whether there is democratic control over the activities of the Agency than whether it functions efficiently. I wonder whether the kind of democratic control which is envisaged by extending the powers of the Assembly will result in the Agency having a greater appeal to foreign investors.
As the Minister knows, I am also anxious about the current proposal of Hotpoint to extend its activities into my constituency and about the attempt by a number of Merseyside Members to steer this development away from Wales towards Merseyside. In such a situation, would a development agency under the control of the Assembly be better able to withstand this kind of imperialism from across the Mersey than it is now? I have grave misgivings on this score.
We are embarking on a path which will diminish the ability of the Development Agency to do its job. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have been agreeably surprised about the way in which it has set about its task. But if we do not insert the new clause the Agency will be unable to do its job in the satisfactory way in which it has done it during its brief existence.

Mr. Gow: All the way through this Bill and all the way through the Scotland Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have argued that there is a recipe for continuing conflict and disagreement between the Assemblies and the House and for conflicts between the Assemblies and the Secretaries of State. We have argued that there are vast areas of great uncertainty, particularly in the Wales Bill.
The new clause is, in effect, an amendment to Clause 60. Clause 60 is one of the most obscure and one of the most dangerous in the whole Bill. One of the extraordinary features of Clause 60 is that it does not specify the bodies to which it applies, yet it gives to the Assembly the power to take over the functions of unspecified bodies or to dissolve unspecified bodies, without the consent of this House, by a new statutory instrument not made in the way to which we have become accustomed but made by the Assembly, and the only limited extent

to which this House will have control of the exercise of the powers under Clause 60 is that those powers cannot be exercised save with the consent of the Secretary of State.
It would have been incredible had it not actually been the fact that Clause 60 could have been inserted with no schedule setting out the bodies to which it relates. I tabled a Question for Written Answer to the Minister and he was good enough to answer giving a list of the bodies that might be affected. But we need to be very much more specific than giving a Written Answer in the House when we are debating legislation, and particularly legislation of a constitutional kind. Therefore, the new clause has the merit that it would at least tell us two bodies which are excluded from Clause 60, and that at least gives us some element of certainty. On that ground alone, I welcome the new clause.
However, it is not only on that ground that I support the new clause. I am no particular friend of agencies or development boards, but for the moment I shall overcome my lack of enthusiasm for organisations of that kind because I want to direct my remarks to the Welsh Development Agency.
The WDA was set up only three years ago, by the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. Only last month there was presented to Parliament the first set of accounts of this new Agency, covering the period 1st January 1976 to 31st March 1977. We may note, in passing, that the accounts of that body were not actually presented to Parliament until very nearly 12 months has elapsed from the end of the first financial year, which was not a financial year but a financial 15 months, although I note that in passing.
However, what are the powers that are conferred by Clause 60? Without recourse to this House, and with the consent of only the Secretary of State, that Agency, set up by Parliament, financed by the consent of this House, could be dissolved or taken over by the new Assembly. These are the powers that the Government are giving to the Assembly—to dissolve the very body which only three years ago the Government told the House was essential for the economic well-being of Wales.
Within a space of three years, therefore, the Treasury Bench tells the House


that that which was regarded as essential to the well-being of Wales three years ago can now be executed, can have its head and its members dismembered. Nor is that all As if to add insult to injury, there is the breathtaking provision of subsection (3) of Clause 60. That provides that before committing an act of murder upon the agency the victim shall be consulted. This is carrying the traditions of 1789 too far.
9.15 p.m.
As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you will have seen the document, in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General we are told what are the duties—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): As the hon. Gentleman says, I have glanced at that report, but I fail to see what it has to do with New Clause No. 5.

Mr. Gow: New Clause No. 5 would prevent the premature death of the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that, but what has the report to do with New Clause No. 5?

Mr. Gow: We are told in the report what are the functions of the Agency, whose death my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) wishes to prevent. What I am now asserting are not the words of an unknown Back Bencher representing a seaside resort but the words in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am defending the Government's position. The Government should have welcomed this new clause. Since we are not likely to get a very credible answer from the Minister, I was offering not only my support but that of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I was arguing that he believes that the WDA is of great importance because he agrees with the Government. The Government themselves believe that the Agency is important, or they would not have set it up only three years ago.

Mr. Dalyell: Who will look after the Welsh Development Agency in future—the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General, who is responsible to the Public Accounts Committee, or the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Gow: As ever, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. On page 51 of the Bill, in part IX of Schedule 2, there are listed the eight elements in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 which are excluded from the purview and responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. So not all the responsibilities under that Act will be devolved to the Assembly. That is another recipe for conflict.
The Agency's purposes, of which the Government approve, of course, are also approved of by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In his report, he said:
The Agency's purposes are to further economic development; the improvement of the environment in Wales; to provide, maintain or safeguard employment there; to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness.
Can the Government really be proposing to destroy, or to give to the Assembly the power to destroy, the very body which is carrying out objectives which on any view are intensely desirable?
The Minister and I may disagree about whether an agency is the best body to provide, maintain and safeguard employment, but that is the Government's own case. It would be wrong to transfer to the Assembly the power to make an Order in Council under Clause 60 without the consent or approval of this House. For that reason, I shall support the new clause enthusiastically.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: We have in Scotland the Scottish Development Agency. It is important to appreciate that if we are to have Assemblies, they will have political reasons to demonstrate their strength, their attitudes and their political importance. If we give the Welsh Development Agency to the Welsh Assembly, the WDA will be able artificially to promote new industry, investment, and so on, and will thereby do what the SDA is doing now, in the name and the pretence of political interest.
It is pretending to create employment, whereas all that it is doing is to move employment from one place to another and to move skilled labour from one place to another. It is bad enough that that should be done by central Government, but if it is to be done by an Assembly which has a political interest in the


very pretences in which the Development Agencies are presently indulging, by God, it will reflect upon this House!

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. and learned Gentleman might reflect on the differences between the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies. We understood very clearly from the Scotland Bill that, at any rate for the moment, the Scottish Development Agency was to be excluded from the Assembly's clutches. It was emphatically a non-devolved area. I was baffled to learn during the course of this debate how great are the powers of the Welsh Assembly over the Welsh Development Agency. It would be interesting to know the difference.

Mr. Fairbairn: I am most obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that point. In the Scotland Bill we were wise enough to exclude that—thank goodness, because it would be the most dangerous political lunacy to allow the Scottish Assembly to buy votes, to buy attitudes, by spending its money. If Wales is to be given the alternative, that is bad.
I am most in favour of the new clause, which would prevent the Welsh Assembly from using a political device, from obtaining an apparent advantage by spending money on a false and pretended political objective.

Mr. Alec Jones: I was much impressed by the new-found love of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) for both the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. It was not a love that found expression in other debates or in the way in which the Conservative Party voted on certain occasions. But I welcome the sinner who repenteth, even at a late hour.
What the hon. Gentleman did not do—if, indeed, he intended doing it—was to allay the doubts and fears of the House, and certainly those Welsh Members who sat on the last Welsh Grand Committee, over his party's attitude towards the DBRW and the WDA. He clearly failed to give the assurances that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) sought, particularly about the DBRW.
It is true that the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Agency's work, but I find it difficult to believe that a Conservative Government would tolerate the existence

of a Welsh Development Agency and at the same time use their votes to remove a Scottish Development Agency, which the Press recently reported was the Conservatives' intention. Some of the contributions to today's debate strengthened my suspicions. I think that it can fairly be said that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) saw the WDA as giving an unfair advantage, to Wales. I cannot easily believe that a Conservative Government supported by that sort of view could give a strong future for the Agency.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman, who is usually a very fair and reasonable debater, thinks that he adds to his case by repeating an assertion about the Scottish Development Agency on the basis of an ill-read Press report that I have already pointed out is wholly untrue. I suggest that the Under-Secretary does not repeat his scare story when it has been officially denied from the Conservative Benches.

Mr. Jones: It may be said that it was only a Press report, but I recall the words that were used in criticising the idea of a Welsh Development Agency. It was my impression—I do not know whether I am right in this—that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) was not a lover of development agencies either, despite his representing a seaside resort.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The Minister referred to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton. South-West (Mr. Budgen), but did he not listen to any of the speeches of his hon. Friends from constituencies in the North-East and note the views that they held on devolution for Scotland and the way they voted?

Mr. Jones: I have made a good many notes of what hon. Members have said in today's debate, and it is today's debate that I am specifically answering. I am particularly dealing with the two bodies operating in Wales.
We are discussing New Clause No. 5 and its proposals for dealing with two of the nominated bodies that are covered by Clause 60, and it is important that to put that clause in its right context. It is a clause that deals with the whole


of the bodies which operate on an all-Wales basis. The new clause deals with only two of those bodies.
It would be a mistake to believe that everyone throughout Wales welcomes with open arms the existence of such large numbers of nominated bodies, and their growth over recent years. There can be very few Members of this House, and certainly very few Welsh Members, who have not criticised those bodies, either individually or collectively, over the past few years. I have heard them criticised sometimes because they have made the wrong decision. Sometimes it has been because the decision did not appear to have been justified by events. Often it has been because the decision was made behind closed doors, without people having the opportunity of knowing about or taking part in the discussions until the decision was made. It is that sort of attitude that has led people to criticise these nominated bodies.
In the Welsh Grand Committee debate only a few months ago hon. Members on both sides of the House criticised the Arts Council. The Sports Council has been criticised, because it is said that it spends too much money on golf and does not devote sufficient attention to deprived inner areas. Even the Welsh Development Agency, despite all the words of praise that have been uttered about it, has been criticised. I have heard criticisms because it has paid insufficient attention to parts of North Wales. I have heard criticisms because it has paid insufficient attention to Valley communities.
All these nominated bodies have been criticised, and continue to be criticised. Part of that criticism concerns their very non-democratic nature and the way in which decisions are made. It is no reflection on the members who serve on those bodies to focus attention on that sort of criticism tonight.
These bodies have considerable powers. Obviously, the powers vary from body to body. The two bodies that we are talking about—the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales—have economic powers now—this is part of the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—and those economic powers will be exercised by those bodies or by some other person. We are basically concerned

with who is to control those powers—whether the control of those powers shall be exercised by the nominated element or whether they will be better controlled by an elected body.

Mr. Grist: Does the Minister agree that it is he and his departmental colleagues who are responsible for these bodies? Does he feel that he is not democratically elected or is not democratically responsible to this House? Will he say in what way he would seek to improve the running of the Arts Council, for example?

Mr. Jones: In making appointments to all these various bodies which proliferate throughout Wales, my right hon. Friend and I, and my ministerial colleagues, seek, with the best will in the world, to give them the widest expression and to draw on people who will best fit the job. I would be lying to the House if I were to say that I could give a categorical assurance that we had always picked the right person for the right job. It just is not on that one human being can be infallible in that connection.
9.30 p.m.
In Clause 60 we are seeking to allow the Assembly to consider whether the present control of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales is adequate, whether it can be improved, and, whether the Assembly ought to subsume those two bodies. Whatever the decision, that decision will be made only with the approval of the Secretary of State. Even if those bodies were subsumed, those functions would still have to be carried out within the guidelines approved by Parliament.
What I am saying is that these economic powers of the WDA and the DBRW will be exercised. Another point that I want to make is that the staff that man these bodies will still be doing that work in the future. What we are talking about is the question who shall have control of the way in which these bodies will be exercised. That is the issue that we are now discussing.

Sir Raymond Gower: Might it be deemed something of an objection that the Minister is saying that power should be democratically exercised by the Assembly although the money provided for these bodies is provided by this


House? The Minister is in this House and should answer to this House rather than to someone who does not provide the money.

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman had listened, he might have paid more attention to the fact that I referred to the guidelines. The guidelines are very powerful weapons of influence and control. They are approved by this House and will remain in existence, even should those bodies eventually be subsumed.

Mr. Hooson: I do not think the Minister has quite dealt with the point that is worrying some hon. Members, namely, the interpretation of the word "functions". As I understand it, what he is saying is that bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency should be responsible to the Welsh Assembly. In that I agree with him. But it is a question of the functions now performed by those bodies. It is that word that is giving trouble.

Mr. Jones: When I develop the point I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will see exactly what I am saying. I hope that it will be of some help, although I am not sure after some of the remarks that were made earlier, but not by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are trying to devise a scheme that will give better and more democratic control over these all-Wales bodies. These all-Wales bodies will now be able to report, and become accountable, to the Assembly itself.
What Clause 60 does not say is that the Assembly will subsume these all-Wales bodies. It does not even say that the Assembly ought to subsume them, or that it must subsume them. It can and may. That means that the Assembly can express its wish to take over part or all of the functions of such bodies. In other words, it can express its view about their future management, but always, before any decision can be made, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Brittan: Will the Minister explain why it is, within the context of the measures for devolution, when the Scottish Assembly is on the whole given greater powers, that the Welsh Assembly should be able to take over the powers of the Agency whereas the Scottish Assembly is

not given that power? Can there be any rational justification for that?

Mr. Jones: These questions have been asked and I am prepared to answer them. When I come to that point in my speech I shall deal specifically with the reasons for the different treatment, but if hon. Members intervene at every moment I shall never answer any of the questions. I shall be dealing specifically with that point, because it was referred to by several hon. Members.
Clause 60 gives the Assembly the powers, if it thinks it appropriate to use them, to consider and to initiate the machinery for subsuming as a means of furthering democratic and more efficient control. In my view, this does not mean abolition. It means putting those bodies under more democratic control. The WDA and the DBRW are only two of such bodies which the Welsh Assembly can consider subsuming and can even request it.
Of course, the Assembly can also decide whether to leave them exactly as they are or to carry out some other minor reforms. But there is no question of any automatic assumption merely because the Assembly would want it. It is important to realise what the Assembly will do. Most hon. Members who support devolution do so on the assumption that the Assembly will consist of responsible men and women representing the best interests of Wales.
The Assembly will want to devise the most effective tool for administering the powers of the WDA and the DBRW. It will want the most effective powers so that it can look after the interests of the whole of Wales. The first step will be to consider what action should be taken by the Assembly. The Assembly will first consider the possibilities of leaving these bodies in existence, modifying some of them, taking part powers, which the clause provides, or subsuming them.
Then there is the next step. The Assembly is obliged by the Bill to consult the bodies concerned. One hon. Member referred to consulting the person whom one will murder later in the day. But surely consultation is an important element in our modern society. When we were discussing elements of the WDA and the DBRW upstairs in Committee, the Conservatives thought it desperately important that consultation should take


place. Therefore, surely they welcome this sort of consultation even if they disagree with the principle of devolution itself. Thus, consultation is the next step.
Following the consultations, the Assembly would have to make its decision as to the course of action it wished to take. It could not take that decision in Committee. It would have to take it in plenary session. Then it would have to seek the approval of the Secretary of State. That means that the final decision on whether these two bodies or any other should be subsumed will be the decision of the Government of the day. I am sure that when the Secretary of State comes to make that decision on the subsumption of any of these bodies he will not be short of advice and will not lack knowledge of the views of the bodies concerned or of Members of this House.
There will have been public debate and discussion in the Assembly. The bodies concerned will have expressed their views to the Secretary of State and to Members of this House—judging by the literature which floods through my mailbox—and because of the public discussion there will be public reaction to it. At the same time, there will be political pressure and questioning by Members in this House.

Mr. Ioan Evans: On the question of the Welsh Assembly's taking over the running of the WDA, will my hon. Friend touch on the financial arrangements that will flow? Is the financing of the WDA to come through the block grant to the Assembly, or is there to be a special financial arrangement?

Mr. Jones: We are back to phase I. This is the point that I made to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. I cannot answer questions straight off the trot like this. I shall be dealing presently with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and that made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. They are important.
As I was saying, even if the order is made and the bodies are to be subsumed, and if the order is approved by the Secretary of State, that does not mean that the Secretary of State or the Government relinquish all control over the WDA and the DBRW.
Several important and essential powers are retained. One, which is of considerable importance and is to be found in Part IX of Schedule 2, is the power to provide selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act. It is remarkable that Opposition Members who make speeches and ask questions are so unwilling to listen to any of the answers. We are talking about selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act. The Welsh Development Agency does not have those powers as of right. It acts only as agent for the Secretary of State. If the Welsh Development Agency were subsumed the Assembly could become the agent of the Secretary of State, but only with the approval of the Secretary of State.
The major restriction on the powers that will be exercised by the Assembly in the event of any subsumption of these bodies is to be found in the guidelines. The Agency at present operates under guidelines that are produced by the Government and are subject to the negative procedure of the House. Even if the Government were to agree that the Agency could or should be subsumed its operations would still be subject to those Government-provided guidelines. It is important to take into account that the guidelines have the parliamentary procedure attached to them. They are drawn up by the Government, and they will apply even post-devolution.
When it was suggested that all these tremendous functions could be taken over by the Assembly, insufficient attention was paid to the importance and restrictive nature of the guidelines. Had hon. Members paid greater attention to Clause 37 and the spelling out in that clause of what the guidelines provide they would not have made the somewhat wild accusations that were made today.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked whether we envisaged any early subsumption by the Assembly of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. The initiative will lie with the Assembly, but I am satisfied that a newly established Assembly will have enough on its plate to deal with the powers devolved under Schedule 2 and Clause 10, which were the subject of our previous debate, without wanting, in its early days, to


bite off a lot more than it can sensibly chew.
The hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) does not have to accept that view, but it is my opinion, and I am as much entitled to hold my opinion as he or my hon. Friend are entitled to hold theirs. I do not deny their sincerity or integrity, and I do not see why anyone should suggest the opposite for me.
A point was made about the difference between the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies. I understand that the establishment of the Scottish Development Agency is a reserved issue, because the Scottish Assembly has legislative powers and therefore could do away with that Agency entirely, leaving no organisation to carry out the reserved and executively devolved functions of that body. That situation could not apply in Wales, because the Welsh Assembly does not have the legislative powers to do likewise with its Agency.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Brittan: The fact that the Scottish Development Agency has been set up by statute does not alter the point. It would have been perfectly possible in the Scotland Bill to reserve that aspect of the statute while at the same time enabling the Scottish Assembly to take over the powers of the Scottish Development Agency if it wished to do so. That was not done in the Scotland Bill and it is inconsistent to do it in the Wales Bill and allow the Welsh Assembly to take over those powers. It would have been perfectly possible within our legislative framework to put both bodies on an equal footing.

Mr. Jones: Of course it would have been possible, but the decision was made early on. We decided at an early stage that there was to be a difference between the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill. We believe that the whole process of devolution was drafted as necessary in Wales and in Scotland. Of course inconsistencies exist. They exist by the very nature of the fact that we have two different bodies to deal with.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is the Minister aware that he has not revealed any cogent reason why this should have been done.

All he has said is that the decision was taken at an early stage.

Mr. Jones: I clearly said that because the Scottish Assembly had legislative powers, it could exercise those powers in such a way as to do away completely with the SDA and leave nothing behind to carry out the reserved and effectively devolved functions. That situation cannot apply in Wales because the Welsh Assembly does not have those powers.
I come to the point about the block grants. The devolved functions of both the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales will be financed from the outset from the block grant. The Assembly will decide how much and what share, but the guidelines will provide the protection for the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course Parliament will approve the total of the block grant.
The hon. Member for Pembroke referred to Clause 60(2) concerning the power to modify an enactment being limited by the words "consequential, incidental or supplementary". Despite what the hon. Gentleman feared, this modification could not extend the functions taken over by the Assembly. Further, any modifications must appear necessary or expedient or an additional limitation to it.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Only to the Assembly, not to anyone else.

Mr. Jones: That is so. I am trying to show that we are treating all nominated bodies in Wales in exactly the same way leaving the initiative for action with the Assembly but still keeping considerable powers with the Secretary of State and the Government.
For the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, the powers reserved to the Secretary of State and the guidelines which are subject to the approval of this House, effectively give us the right mix. The opportunities for more democratic control of these two bodies will be achieved and at the same time there will be the retention by the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much conversation going on in the Chamber.

Mr. Jones: As I was saying, I believe that the clause as it stands achieves the right mix between democratic control and the retention by central Government of the necessary powers which will prevent actions being taken by the Assembly which might be interpreted as unfair to other parts of the United Kingdom. For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has already sat down.

Mr. Dalyell: The Minister, no doubt inadvertently—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is now on Report. The Minister has sat down, and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) cannot speak twice on a clause.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I rose to my feet before the Minister sat down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that the Minister had already sat down.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 243.

Division No. 197]
AYES
[9.50 p.m.


Adley Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Nigel


Aitken, Jonathan
Fairgrieve, Russell
Le Merchant, Spencer


Alison, Michael
Farr, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Arnold, Tom
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Luce, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Forman, Nigel
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baker, Kenneth
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McCrindle, Robert


Banks, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Macfarlane, Neil


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacGregor, John


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mates, Michael


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Biggs-Davidson, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Mawby, Ray


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Griffiths, Eldon
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brittan, Leon
Grist, Ian
Mills, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Brooke, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate, Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Molyneaux, James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Budgen, Nick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Bulmer, Esmond
Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Burden, F. A.
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mudd, David


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Neave, Airey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hodgson, Robin
Neubert, Michael


Channon, Paul
Holland, Philip
Newton, Tony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)




Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Percival, Ian


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pink, R. Bonner


Crowder F. P.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dodsworlh, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Dunlop, John
Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)




Rhodes, James R.
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Malcolm
Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Sproat, Iain
Wall, Patrick


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stanley, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Weatherill, Bernard


Sainsbury, Tim
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wells, John


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stokes, John
Whilelaw, Rt Hon William


Scott, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Colin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Shersby, Michael
Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Ron George


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter



Sims, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sinclair, Sir George
Trotter, Neville
Sir George Young and


Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton,




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Lambie, David


Anderson, Donald
Dewar, Donald
Lamborn, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
English, Michael
Luard, Evan


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Barnelt, Guy (Greenwich)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, John (Newton)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Bates, Alf
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh


Bean, R. E.
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, Iain


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McNamara, Kevin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Freud, Clement
Madden, Max


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Magee, Bryan


Bradley, Tom
George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Buchan, Norman
Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Buchanan, Richard
Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Graham, Ted
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mitchell, Austin


Campbell, Ian
Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Carter, Ray
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moyle, Roland


Cartwright, John
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Henderson, Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Clemitson, Ivor
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooson, Emlyn
Noble, Mike


Cohen, Stanley
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Padley, Walter


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Huckfield, Les
Palmer, Arthur


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George


Crawford, Douglas
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parker, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert


Cronin, John
Hunter, Adam
Pendry, Tom


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Penhaligon, David


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Janner, Greville
Reid, George


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
John, Brynmor
Robinson, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Doig, Peter
Judd, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Dormand, J. D.
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rose, Paul B.







Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stoddart, David
Wellbeloved, James


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Strang, Gavin
Welsh, Andrew


Rowlands, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Sandelson, Neville
Swain, Thomas
White, James (Pollok)


Sedgemore, Brian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Whitlock, William


Sever, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wigley, Dafydd


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Thompson, George
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Tinn, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Silverman, Julius
Tomlinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Tom
Woof, Robert


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Snape, Peter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)



Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stallard, A. W.
Watt, Hamish
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Weitzman, David
Mr. James Hamilton.


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause No. 6

AUDIT OF WELSH COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL

'In relation to any accounts examined by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General in accordance with the provisions of section 52 of this Act, section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply as if—

(a) such examinations were an audit of accounts under Part VIII of the Local Government Act 1972;
(b)the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General were a district auditor;
(c)members of the Assembly were members of a local authority;
(d)any reference in the said section 161 to a person being disqualified for being a member of a local authority were a reference to that person being disqualified for being a member of the Assembly; and
(e) subsection (13) of the said section 161 provided as follows:—

(13) The Court having jurisdiction for the purpose of this section shall be the High Court."'.)—[Mr. Brittan]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Brittan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is designed to provide an effective mechanism to deal with the situation in which the Welsh Assembly exceeds its powers. There is already in the Bill provision for the courts to determine whether and when that has happened, but there is no adequate provision to enforce a court order if it has happened. The clause seeks to adapt the provisions contained in the Local Government Act 1972 and to provide sanctions for use in such a situation. I stress at the outset that, in seeking to move the new clause and to provide sanctions on those lines, we are not in any way suggesting that it is likely to be a frequent occurrence for the Welsh Assembly to act unlawfully or for this sanction to be required to be used.
None the less, in our view there is a gap that should be filled in important constitutional legislation of this kind. It is unsatisfactory that there should be limitations on the powers of the Welsh Assembly and that there should be machinery for determining whether those limitations have been exceeded but that there should be no means of securing that the limitations do not continue to be

exceeded once it has been decided that they have been exceeded.
Clause 70 enables the Attorney-General to institute, and the Assembly to defend, proceedings for the determination of any question whether anything done or proposed to be done by the Assembly is within its powers. The House will recall that when we debated that provision it was suggested from the Conservative Benches that it would be necessary to supplement that provision and to ensure that not only the Attorney-General but an ordinary individual who had the appropriate standing should be able to bring such proceedings and to ensure that proceedings could be brought not only to see whether anything had been done or proposed to be done in excess of the Assembly's powers but to make sure that the Assembly carried out its duties.
The one aspect of the amendment which was moved from this side of the Committee on that occasion which was not acceptable to the Government, in the person of the Attorney-General, was the suggestion that the court should be entitled to make any sort of order requiring the Assembly to do or not to do something if it was found to have exceeded its powers or to be contemplating exceeding its powers. The Court would be the High Court in England and Wales, according to where it was sitting.
I found it difficult to be persuaded by the arguments of the Attorney-General as to why that was an inappropriate procedure. On considering the matter, we decided that the appropriate remedy might be that, instead of permitting a court to make an order that would be difficult to enforce against the Assembly, a borrowing should be made from the Local Government Act 1972 to provide a sanction by means of the powers of the district auditor and the court so that the Members of the Assembly would suffer in appropriate circumstances, which, I stress, would be rare, the sanctions that members of local authorities suffer if they wilfully exceed their powers.
Of course, this is a severe measure if interpreted literally and if all the powers were exercised to the full, but the provisions of Section 161 of the Local Government Act, which the new clause suggests should be applicable to the Assembly, are discretionary and provide


a wide measure of defences which would prevent their being exercised in an unreasonable way or in circumstances in which they were inappropriate.
It is appropriate to apply this sanction to the Assembly because it is, perhaps, the only effective sanction to deal with a situation in which the Assembly fails to carry out a duty or exceeds its powers.
I concede to the Attorney-General that if a court were empowered to make an order requiring the Assembly to do, or to desist from doing, something and the Assembly refused to carry out the order, there is little that the court could do in the face of such resistance. That would clearly be a most unsatisfactory situation.
I hasten to add that I am not expecting that such a situation will arise, and the inclusion of provisions to deal with it should not be regarded as a reflection on the Assembly or an indication that it is likely to occur. However, it would be incomplete to fail to provide an appropriate way of dealing with such a situation.
We have therefore suggested an adaptation of the procedure in the Local Government Act, particularly in Section 161, which provides that
Where the audit of any accounts under this Part of this Act is carried out by a district auditor and it appears to him that any item of account is contrary to law he may apply to the court for a declaration that the item is contrary to law except where it is sanctioned by the Secretary of State.
I stress that this applies only if the district auditor believes that the item on which money has been spent is contrary to law. There is the further protection that it is not open to the district auditor to take action of his own. He has to apply to the court. In addition, he is not obliged to apply to the court. It is a permissive provision which says that he may apply to the court for the appropriate declaration.
Section 161(2) of the Local Government Act states:
On an application under subsection (1) above the court may make or refuse to make the declaration asked for".
It is clear that the court has a discretion, which it will not hesitate to use, against making a declaration if it believes that it is inappropriate to do so. Where the

makes such a declaration, it may also order that
any person responsible for incurring or authorising any expenditure declared unlawful shall repay it in whole or in part to the body in question and, where two or more persons are found to be responsible, that they shall be jointly and severally liable to repay it as aforesaid".
The court may do that, but it is not obliged to do it, even if it finds that what has been done is contrary to law. It may also decide—but it is not obliged to do so—if any such ependiture exceeds £2,000 and the person responsible for incurring or authorising it is a member of a local authority, to order him to be disqualified from being a member of a local authority for a specified period.
10.15 p.m.
When considering the possibility of these penalties—namely, repayment of money and disqualification—it is crucial to take on board the implications of subsection (3) of Section 161, which lays down important limitations. That subsection provides that
The court shall not make an order … if the court is satisfied that the person responsible for incurring or authorising any such expenditure acted reasonably or in the belief that the expenditure was authorised by law".
That makes it clear that either of those situations provides a defence and disentitles the court from making an order. That means that if the person concerned thought that the expenditure was lawful there can be no surcharge or disqualification. Even if that person did not think that the expenditure was lawful and he acted reasonably, there can be no surcharge or disqualification.
These penalties can arise only if the district auditor has considered the matter and come to the conclusion that it is appropriate to ask for an order, if the court comes to the same conclusion and if the defences are not available.
The further provision is that in any other case, if the court comes to the conclusion that the person has not acted reasonably or has not acted in the belief that the expenditure was authorised by law, it
shall have regard to all the circumstances, including that person's means and ability to repay that expenditure or any part of it.
I shall not analyse the remainder of Section 161, which deals with other wilful


defaults and provides a mechanism for an aggrieved individual to raise the issue.
I hope that I have illustrated the general nature of the power. We are operating under a time limit. The power is discretionary and is hedged in with all types of protections. The effect of it is that there is no risk of its being exercised in a draconian or unfair way. It can be exercised only if there has been a flagrant breach of the law.
In the new clause those provisions are adapted to the Welsh Assembly so that the audit of accounts referred to in the Local Government Act applies in such a way that the examination provided for by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General under Clause 52 is treated in the same way. The Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General is treated as if he were a district auditor and the Members of the Assembly are treated as if they were members of a local authority.
The important transformation of the provisions ensures that even when small sums are involved the powers can be exercised only by the High Court and not, as with local government, by the county courts.
We are seeking to provide a means of ensuring that, in the rare case of the Assembly failing to act according to the law and refusing to comply with it, there shall in the last resort be a means of taking the only action that would have any effect on the Members who wilfully act against the law—that is, surcharge and disqualification.
The only argument that I can think of—I dare say that the Minister will think of others—that could be raised against the provision of such powers is that in this respect it is in some sense inappropriate to treat the Assembly as if it were a local authority. Here again, as in so many cases, we come to one of the central features of the debates on the Bill—namely, that in some respects the Government wish the Assembly to be treated as a local authority and in other respects they shy away from that.
All that I can say is that, without seeking to anticipate arguments that may be put forward on this point, it is not sufficient to say that the Assembly is not the same as a local authority and ought not for these purposes to be treated as a local authority Those who seek to make

that case must explain what the difference is that makes it inappropriate that the Assembly should be treated as a local authority in this respect. For my part, I can think of none.
It is not in any sense an affront to the dignity of the Assembly, because I would have hoped that local authorities were bodies which the House would wish to regard and treat as bodies of considerable authority and dignity. It is not meant in that sense as in any way a denigration.
It remains the fact that without provisions of this kind, and with the Attorney-General resisting our amendment to Clause 70, in the rare but not impossible case of the Assembly refusing to obey the law this House would be powerless. That is a situation which we do not think should remain. It is not a state in which the Bill ought to leave this House, if it leaves it at all. It is for that reason that I move the new clause.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like first to ask a direct question of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary which was not cleared up in the previous context. In relation to the Welsh Development Agency, will the audit be done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the United Kingdom or by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General? This is not a pernickety point. It is a point of some substance and importance. If my hon. Friend does not know the answer from the top of his head, I should be grateful if he would get an answer from the Box, because this subject raises the whole question of the authority and economic powers of the Assembly.
Secondly—and here I speak with some diffidence because I am not a lawyer, but with the exception of yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister, being the only Welsh Lebaur Members present, perhaps I speak for the unanimous opinion of the Labour Back Benches yet again—I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the issue of the High Court. As I say, I speak with some diffidence, but with rather less diffidence having studied the speeches of the Law Lords in another place. I quote part of the speech made on 18th April by Lord Wilberforce. I admit that there are differences that we have gone over endlessly between the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, but I think that this applies to the situation that we are discussing.
The noble Lord said:
First, they are very complicated and technical "—
those are the decisions—
and require for their decision an expert body, inevitably of lawyers, and preferably an expert body of a permanent character. Secondly, since they are likely to give rise to friction between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom"—
and for Scotland one could read "Wales" here—
The decision must be in the hands of a body which has the confidence of both the citizens of Scotland and the citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom. Thirdly and most important, the questions which have to be decided are questions of a constitutional character such as in Europe would come before a so-called constitutional court, in Canada, Australia and the United States would come before a body set up to decide constitutional questions, and the system of law by which they are to be judged and decided I should think would be unquestionably constitutional law.
I do not want to go on with this argument but wish to turn briefly to the arguments of Lord Scarman, who said:
Why not have the courage to say that this calls for a new constitutional bottle, a new constitutional judicial body? We shall begin by calling it a Council. That is the British way of concealing the truth behind euphemistic terms like, for instance, the term 'devolution'. That is one very nice way of doing it. But sooner or later we are coming to a court as, perhaps sooner rather than later, we are coming to a federation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18th April 1978; Vol. 390, cc 1089, 1112–13.]
I agree that there were differences of opinion, that Lord Morris and Lord Dip-lock took somewhat different views in another context, but when the heavy-weight Law Lords of this country express such deep dissatisfaction, what is the Government's answer to the question of whether the High Court is a suitable place to resolve these matters?
It is late and I have truncated my speech. I let it rest on that question, but I hope that it gets an answer.

Mr. A. P. Costain: As an English Member one hesitates to take part in a Welsh debate, but as a member of the Public Accounts Committee I am particularly interested in the new clause—especially since today we have had the extraordinary experience of the chairman of the National Enterprise Board expressing doubt whether the Comptroller and Auditor General

has the right to reveiw the NEB's accounts.
Therefore, is my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) satisfied about the relationship under this new clause between the Comptroller and Auditor General of the United Kingdom and the holder of the Welsh Office? Will the Welsh one be above or below the United Kingdom one? How will accounts be considered between the two?
We are giving the Comptroller and Auditor General the powers of the district auditor, which basically involve more power to deal with the individual than the Comptroller and Auditor General has. Although in theory the latter has the power to surcharge an accounting officer, he has never done so, at least during this century. The same cannot be said of the district auditor.
Therefore, can these additional powers be enforced in reality. In practice, few accounting officers in this century or the last could afford to pay the surcharge which could be applied to them under the possible sanctions. Therefore we need to know whether the powers in the new clause, which I support, are practicable and whether they can be enforced in the ordinary course of parliamentary business.
If we refer to the law as having been broken will we be referring to Common Market regulations, the law of this Parliament or the law of the Welsh Assembly? Which would have priority? Answers to these questions would be helpful.

Sir David Renton: The points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) deserve very careful attention. We are in a strange position, because we are brought into the realm of the twilight. The Welsh Assembly is neither a local authority, with the statutory disciplines that Parliament imposes upon a local authority, nor a Secretary of State with answerability to this House.
The Government have done their best in almost impossible circumstances to create something to shed a little light upon that twilight area by inventing and—if the Bill ever by misfortune becomes law—appointing the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. But, in order that be may know how he is to exercise his


functions, it is essential that he should be given some kind of guidance.
10.30 p.m.
My hon. and learned Friend, in putting forward the new clause, had to adopt an unusual and rather difficult drafting contrivance in order that the position to which he has drawn attention could be brought into statutory form. Not everybody would agree that the provisions of a statute should be held to apply to another statute merely "as if". The purists in matters of drafting would indeed have a good deal to complain about in some circumstances if that were done. But in the circumstances with which we are faced this is one of the exceptions when a contrivance of the kind proposed is justified.
Although this is a twilight area, the analogy with the way in which the district auditor performs his duties in relation to local authorities could well be thought accurately to apply to the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General when he is auditing the accounts of the Welsh Assembly. Therefore, there is a justification for paragraphs (a) and (b) of the clause, and it follows of necessity that, whether they like it or not, the Members of the Assembly would have to be treated for the purposes of the audit as though they were members of a local authority.
If I may say so in passing, I trust without going out of order, I think that the Members will be somewhat over-alert to usurp the functions of local authorities. The temptations will be great. At any rate, for the purpose of the audit I think it is perfectly fair that they should be treated as though they were members of a local authority.
One hates in Parliament to have to assume that people might not come up to scratch, but it has been known for members of local authorities to incur disqualification through one misfeasance or another, and so, alas, we must have paragraph (d) in the new clause. It says:
any reference in the said section 161",
which I need not repeat, because my hon. and learned Friend has already described it,
to a person being disqualified for being a member of a local authority were a reference to that person being disqualified for being a member of the Assembly".

Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that he was a member of the Kilbrandon Commission, which had a great deal to say on the subject of how the Assemblies, if they were to come into being, were not to be treated as and not to be aligned with local authorities. Is not this a bit different?

Sir D. Renton: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has underlined a matter which is very much in the minds of every Member of the House, I should have thought, because it is an ambivalent situation. There is no doubt whatever about that. I have already referred to the temptation that there will be on the part of some Assembly Members—one would hope not the majority, but it might sometimes be the majority—to usurp the functions of local authorities in a state of almost subconscious empire building.

Mr. Dalyell: What the heck are they to do if they do not usurp the work of the local authorities? Here we are with an Assembly, which apparently is to sit 37 weeks in the year, without all these powers. Unless it meddles in local authority matters, it will be twiddling its proverbial thumbs.

Sir D. Renton: I think that there is a very grave danger of that. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps politically even more courageous than I for many years have tried to be. I am very grateful to him for pointing that out.

Mr. Dalyell: Not politically courageous but politically wise, as the election results in Scotland yesterday seem to show.

Sir D. Renton: I am not a Scottish Member, although I have some Scottish ancestry. But, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a Scottish Member—and who is paying very close attention indeed, I have no doubt, to the results of the elections in Scotland—has pointed out, there is a lesson to be learnt in relation to the Principality of Wales.
I do not propose, just for the moment—if I may give notice of this, Mr. Speaker—to yield any further to the hon. Gentleman, if he should wish me to give way, because I have other things, perhaps more pertinent to the new clause which I feel obliged to say. My next point, in


fact, follows up the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will not ask me to give way yet again. He said, in relation to sub-paragraph (e) of the new clause—I must call it that because it is not a subsection—that in another place eminent Law Lords had suggested that any question of interpretation that arises under these devolution Bills should be decided by a new kind of court, a constitutional court.
I have the misfortune, Mr. Speaker, to disagree with those great Law Lords. I consider that those members of my profession who have reached the High Court bench after years of arduous toil at the Bar, and generally with very varied practices, are in as good a position, once they reach the High Court bench—and perhaps the Court of Appeal, and eventually the House of Lords—to decide on questions of interpretation of Acts of Parliament as the Members of any more specialised court would be.
Moreover, I think that if we were to establish a more specialised court we should have to face up to the fact that the judges upon it would have had the same sort of experience as High Court judges would have had before reaching the bench but that once they were members of that specialised court they would have the disadvantage, which High Court judges do not suffer, of having to confine themselves to constitutional matters and the interpretation of the administrative provisions of statutes, as happens on the Continent.
I do not think that that is a good evolution of our judicial tradition. I think that it is better that we should fasten upon the High Court in Scotland and in England and Wales the responsibility of determining all statutes which Parliament gives them the opportunity of interpreting. Sometimes, of course, Parliament deprives them of that opportunity. But, rather than creating separate courts, the new clause is right in saying that
The Court having jurisdiction for the purpose of this section shall be the High Court.
To that extent I disagree with those eminent Law Lords. However, it is a good thing that the hon. Member for West Lothian drew attention to what they had said. I hope that we shall not give too much encouragement to it.
Having said that, I feel that the Opposition Front Bench is right to have moved the new clause, both for the removal of doubt and for the inherent advantages which it would confer if by some misfortune the Welsh Assembly ever came into existence.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I have listened with interest to the clever and ingenious case that the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) made to promote the new clause. I have heard the interesting and complex contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. As ever, I shall reply briefly, bluntly and most simply. I frequently find myself at the Dispatch Box at a late hour answering complex new clauses on legal matters.
For the information of the House, I should say that the Welsh Assembly will be exercising central Government functions. We feel that arrangements for the audit of its accounts should be based on those presently in operation for Government accounts. That is why we have Clause 49 of the Bill, which creates the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General. Clause 59 provides for access by him to the Assembly's books and other papers. It is Clause 52 which provides for him to audit the Assembly's accounts. In Clause 53 there is the provision for the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General's report to be laid before the Assembly and for the Assembly's Accounts Committee to scrutinise the report and itself to report to the Assembly. In Clause 54 there is the very important provision for publication of the accounts as well as the reports of the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and the Accounts Committee. It is as well to inform the House again of those provisions, because they are very important.
I should like to assure hon. Members who have posed their questions that these procedures are adapted from the long-established and well-tried system whereby the Government are accountable to Parliament for their expenditure.
In one sense the position of the Welsh Assembly will be different, in that there is no separate Executive. But the Bill provides for a separate Executive Committee and an Accounts Committee. I want to reassure the House that financial


initiatives may be made only on the recommendation of the Executive Committee. It is the Executive Committee which prepares the accounts of payments in and out of the Welsh consolidated and loans funds. I think that these are important points to make because, clearly, hon. Members have doubts and seek information, and I wish to give the background so that they get a better understanding of why the Government's case is that the new clause should be rejected.
10.45 p.m.
The Accounts Committee may include only one member of the Executive Committee and will reflect the party balance in the Assembly. It is an important provision that all political parties in the Assembly should be represented on that very important committee. The Accounts Committee, which will be very important, will be the Assembly's watchdog over the way the block grant is spent, and it can be counted upon to bring any irregularity to the notice of both the Assembly and the public.
The Executive Committee, or the individuals on it, will have to face all the resulting political pressures and justify its behaviour to the Assembly. It is fair to say that these pressures are not to be taken lightly, because the Assembly will be directly elected; it will be a directly elected political institution.
The Government regard it as important that the arrangements for accounts and audit should operate in a way that encourages the development of a powerful Back Bench watchdog on the lines of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. I hope that the House will accept that in the Assembly there will be every conceivable safeguard with regard to some of the doubts that hon. Members are raising.

Sir David Renton: It would help the House a great deal and clarify the whole situation if the hon. Gentleman could tell us to whom the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General will be answerable. Obviously he cannot be answerable to the Assembly because he is to be its watchdog.

Mr. Jones: I think that the immediate and speedy answer I would wish to give is that as long as the Comptroller and

Auditor General is doing his job properly and is ascertaining that things are being run well, that is the basic assurance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would seek to have from me at this time of the day in this important debate.

Mr. W. Benyon: Surely local government committees, which are directly elected and which are all-party, still act ultra vires. Why should not the same situation apply in this case?

Mr. Jones: There is every certainty in my mind, as there was when I gave my previous reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), that the Comptroller and Auditor General will be responsible to the Welsh Assembly. I note the disappointment of Opposition Members. They would like to have a less clear answer at this time of night, but they will have to be satisfied with the correct answer that I am giving, which I am stating in as courteous a tone as possible to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Brittan: The objection is not to the courtesy but to the lack of relevancy. If a local authority can be subject to surcharge if its members wilfully and deliberately act contrary to the law—a local authority which is an elected body responsible to its electorate—why should not the Welsh Assembly be subject to the same procedure?

Mr. Jones: The Assembly is not a local authority, but I hope that I can come in a little more detail and in a little more time to the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Before I was interrupted, I was about to say that I did not think that these pressures should be taken lightly in a directly elected political institution. It is important that the arrangements for accounts and audit should operate in a way that encourages the development of this powerful Back Bench watchdog committee, on the lines of the Westminster Public Accounts Committee. The Government wish, and in many ways expect, to see an Assembly is confident, which is mature and which will be responsible in handling such matters as we are debating tonight.
I now wish to say something about the new clause. I noticed that in the ingenious way in which the hon. and


learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby proposed the new clause he said that he does not wish the powers that it provides to be exercised to the full. He wants discretion to be applied. He does not want the powers in the new clause to be exercised inappropriately and unreasonably. The hon. and learned Gentleman implied that he and his hon. Friends think that there is a gap and that the new clause is the solution to that, but I think that to a degree he undermined his argument by saying "Do not place too much relevance on the new clause. In fact, do not use all the powers that we are proposing."

Mr. Brittan: That is not what was said. Nothing of that kind was said. I said that by adopting the procedure of the 1972 Local Government Act the new clause adopted a procedure that was not a blunderbuss automatically applied whenever there was an accidental breach of the law but was a careful instrument, with an abundance of safeguards, to ensure that the drastic powers of surcharge and disqualification were used only in the case of a flagrant breach. What the Minister has said is a misrepresentation of what the new clause says and what I said in support of it.

Mr. Jones: I think not. I stand by what I said. Perhaps I have stung the hon. and learned Gentleman a little by quoting directly in part what he said. I said that he does not want to exercise the powers in the new clause to the full. He wants discretion to be exercised. By saying those things, he is to a degree drawing back from the solution that he proposes in the new clause. At this late hour I do not propose to dally overlong on the complexity of some of the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman put forward from the Opposition Front Bench.
I was about to say that such an attitude can hardly be expected to be encouraged by the new clause, because it seems to me that its purpose is to treat the Assembly as a local authority. I think that to seize on the aspects of local government audit which deal with irregularities shows a misplaced mistrust of the Assembly and of the integrity of the Members whom the Welsh people will choose to represent them. The hon. and learned Gentleman somewhat slid over

that aspect of the matter. He was slightly shamefaced in the manner in which he made his points.
The procedures under Section 161 of the 1972 Act are entirely unsuitable for a central Government institution. If the Assembly is to be a flourishing and responsible political body—and it will be, notwithstanding the disagreement of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards)—it is far better for it to devise its own way of dealing with any irregularities that are uncovered by the Welsh Comptroller and Auditor General and the Accounts Committee.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister have the courtesy to reply to the points that I made in the debate? How does the Comptroller and Welsh Auditor General stand in relation to the British Comptroller and Auditor General, and why is the Welsh Assembly given more power than this Parliament to sack the Comptroller and Auditor General?

Mr. Jones: I listened with great care to the hon. Member's remarks. I think that he has raised a number of false points. He was rather mistakenly referring to the EEC. I would have thought that he would have been pleased, just as I am, that the Comptroller and Auditor General for Wales has substantial powers. Perhaps he is envious that such a situation will exist in the Welsh Assembly.
Before time runs out, I want to deal with the complex points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire with regard to the Law Lords. None of the arguments apply in Wales. The powers to be exercised by the Assembly are set out in the Bill, and there can be little or no room—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Even at this late hour, Conservative Members should pay attention to the answers that the Government are giving to the important points raised in this brief debate.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Minister reflect that the attitude of the Conservative Opposition throughout the Bill has been to impede progress, with destructive amendments? Now that we are debating the essential issue of control of public expenditure in the Assembly, they are indulging in hysterics rather than listening to the Minister's response.

Sir Raymond Gower: In view of the very serious constitutional significance of the fact that only new clauses have been dealt with and not a single amendment has been reached, is it not an appalling situation to suggest that we should have discussed amendments when they have not been reached? The Government, even now, should relent and give us extra time.

Mr. Jones: The attitude of the official Opposition leaves a lot to be desired, particularly when one is attempting to give as good a reply as one can at this late hour.
The powers to be exercised by the Assembly in Wales are set out in the Bill, and there can be little or no room for argument whether a particular power is exercisable by the Secretary of State or the Assembly.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, in another of his pertinacious interventions, mentioned the funding of the Welsh Development Agency. The funding of the Agency will be from the block fund—

Mr. Pym: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since many of us feel that the Minister's reply, if such it can be called, is nothing less than an insult to Parliament, with 30 seconds to go I wish to move, That the Question be now put.

It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [16th November] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 252.

Division No. 198]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley Robert
Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Crowder F. P.
Higgins, Terence L.


Alison, Michael
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hodgson, Robin


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Holland, Philip


Arnold, Tom
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Drayson, Burnaby
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Awdry, Daniel
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hurd, Douglas


Baker, Kenneth
Dunlop, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Banks, Robert
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)


Bell, Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bendall, Vivian (Ilford North)
Emery, Peter
James, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Benyon, W.
Fairgrieve, Russell
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Berry, Hon Anthony
Farr, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Biffen, John
Fell, Anthony
Kimball, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Blaker, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Knox, David


Body, Richard
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lamont, Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lawson, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Brittan, Leon
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian


Brooke, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Loveridge, John


Brotherton, Michael
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Luce, Richard


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Buck, Antony
Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Budgen, Nick
Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Burden, F. A.
Gorst, John
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Carlisle, Mark
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Marten, Neil


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon
Mates, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maude, Angus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Clegg, Walter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mayhew, Patrick


Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Costain, A. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman




Moate, Roger
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Molyneaux, James
Rifkind, Malcolm
Stokes, John


Monro, Hector
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tapsell, Peter


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Morgan, Geraint
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tebbit, Norman


Mudd, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neave, Airey
Royle, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Neubert, Michael
Sainsbury, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Tony
St. John-Stevas, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Nott, John
Scott, Nicholas
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Onslow, Cranley
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wakeham, John


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shepherd, Colin
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, Richard (Workington)
Shersby, Michael
Wall, Patrick


Parkinson, Cecil
Silvester, Fred
Walters, Dennis


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sims, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Percival, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Pink, R. Bonner
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, John


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Speed, Keith
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Spence, John
Whitney, Raymond (Wycombe)


Raison, Timothy
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Younger, Hon George


Rathbone, Tim
Sproat, Iain



Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Stanbrook, Ivor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Stanley, John
Sir George Young and


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Mr. Peter Morrison.


Rhodes, James R.






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Huckfield, Les


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Hunter, Adam


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dempsey, James
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bates, Alf
Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bean, R. E.
Doig, Peter
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Beith, A. J.
Dormand, J. D.
Janner, Greville


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadle, Alex
John, Brynmor


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Edge, Geoff
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Judd, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lambie, David


Bradley, Tom
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Buchanan, Richard
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
MacCormick, Iain


Campbell, Ian
Freud, Clement
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McElhone, Frank


Cant, R. B.
George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Carmichael, Neil
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Carter, Ray
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Cartwright, John
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Clemitson, Ivor
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Madden, Max


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan


Coleman, Donald
Grocott, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth


Corbett, Robin
Hardy, Peter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crawford, Douglas
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Meacher, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Cronin, John
Henderson, Douglas
Mendelson, John


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hooley, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cryer, Bob
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Horam John
Mitchell, Austin




Molloy, William
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tilley, John (Lambeth, Central)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Ryman, John
Tomlinson, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sandelson, Neville
Torney, Tom


Moyle, Roland
Sedgemore, Brian
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Sever, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Newens, Stanley
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Noble, Mike
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkins, David


Oakes, Gordon
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Watt, Hamish


O'Halloran, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wellbeloved, James


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Silverman, Julius
Welsh, Andrew


Padley, Walter
Skinner, Dennis
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Palmer, Arthur
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, James (Pollock)


Park, George
Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Parry, Robert
Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Pavitt, Laurie
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
Willams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Penhaligon, David
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Perry, Ernest
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stoddart, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Radice, Giles
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Reid, George
Swain, Thomas
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woodall, Alec


Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Woof, Robert


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rodbers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)



Rooker, J. W.
Thompson, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roper, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Rose, Paul B.
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Ted Graham.


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am now required by the terms of the Allocation of Time Order to put the Question on any amendment moved by a member of the Government. The Government amendments standing on the Amendment Paper to which this applies are Amendments Nos. 7, 13 to 16, 18, 40, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53 to 58, 62, 67, 70, 74 to 81, and 99 to 107. If there is no objection, I propose to put the Questions en bloc.

Clause 8

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AS TO DISQUALIFICATION

Amendment made: No. 7, in page 5, line 40, at end insert—
'; and the applicant shall give such security for the costs of the proceedings, not exceeding £200, as the court may direct.'.—[Mr. John South.]

Clause 15

STANDING ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 14, in page 7, line 16, leave out 'including' and insert
'and any standing order made by virtue of this subsection may include'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 18

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 8, line 18, after 'members' insert 'of the Assembly'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 20

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN POWERS OF SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 8, line 40, after 'by' insert
'or in pursuance of a resolution of'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 23

DEFAMATION

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 10, line 6, after 'it' insert
'which is fair and accurate'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Clause 76

STATUTORY REFERENCES TO PARLIAMENT IN CONNECTION WITH SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 30, line 24, after 'by' insert
'or in pursuance of a resolution of'.—[Mr John Smith.]

Orders of the Day — Clase 80

REFERENDUM

Amendment made: No. 45, in page 32, line 29, leave out from 'House' to 'Her' in line 31.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

EXISTING STATUTORY FUNCTIONS

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 39, leave out lines 44 and 45.

No. 49, in page 41, line 23, at end insert—
'The Rentcharges Act 1977 (c.30). The powers under that Act so far as exercisable in relation to any rentcharge (or legally apportioned part) that affects both land in England and land in Wales'.

No. 51, in page 42, leave out lines 44 and 45.

No. 53, in page 44, columne 2, leave out lines 3 to 17 and insert—
'The functions under sections 31 and 32.
The functions under section 34 except the function of providing by regulations for the making and determination of appeals to the Assembly under section 33 and for persons to be informed of decisions on those appeals'.

No. 54, in page 44, line 20, column 2, at end insert—
'The powers under section 57'.

No. 55, in page 44, column 2, leave out lines 40 to 47 and insert—
'The powers under section 100.
The powers under section 102 so far as exercisable in relation to the bodies referred to in subsection (1)(a)'.

No. 56, in page 44, line 50, column 2, leave out from '108' to end of line 51.

No. 57, in page 45, colunm 2, leave out lines 2 to 22 and insert—
'The functions under section 119.
The power under section 124(6).
The power of the Treasury under section 126(2) so far as relating to any power which remains exercisable by the Secretary of State.
The functions under section 127 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown or relates to the bodies referred to in section 5(4) and 102(1)(a).
The powers under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 5 and, so far as incidental to those powers, the functions under paragraph 11(1) of that Schedule.
The power under paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 and, so far as exercisable in connection with

any body established under that paragraph, the power under paragraph 6 of that Schedule'.

No. 58, in page 45, line 24, column 2, at end insert—
'The powers under Schedule 13.
The power under paragraph 8 of Schedule 14'.

No. 62, in page 51, line 15, leave out 'section' and insert 'sections 13(4) and'.

No. 67, in page 54, leave out lines 26 and 27.

No. 70, in page 56, column 2, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert—
'The functions under Part II and, so far as they relate to grants or loans under that Part, sections 19 and 20.'.

No. 74, in page 57, column 2, leave out line 27 and insert—
'The functions under sections 17(3) and 20(6).
The powers under section 112 so far as exercisable in relation to a canal forming part of a harbour.
The powers under section 113 so far as exercisable in relation to a waterway forming part of a harbour or owned or managed by excepted statutory undertakers.'.

No. 75, in page 57, line 28, column 1, after '57', insert '112, 113'.

No. 76, in page 60, line 11, column 2, at beginning insert—
'The power to concur in regulations not exclusively made in connection with burials in Wales or the notification of registrars in Wales.'.

No. 77, in page 60, line 15, column 2, at beginning insert—
'The power to approve regulations not exclusively made in connection with marriages in Wales or notices given to, or certificates or licences issued by, persons in Wales.'.

No. 78, in page 60, line 17, column 2, at beginning insert—
'The power to approve regulations made for the purposes of section 3A or 14 and regulations not exclusively made in connection with births or deaths in Wales or registration in Wales.'.

No. 79, in page 60, line 20, column 2, at beginning insert—
'The power under section 20 to approve regulations not exclusively made in connection with the registration service in Wales.'.

No. 80, in page 60, leave out lines 23 and 24.

No. 81, in page 60, line 25, column 2, at beginning insert—
'The power to approve regulations not exclusively made in connection with marriages in Wales.'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 10

POWERS OF ASSEMBLY TO MAKE OR CONFIRM ORDERS SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 68, line 39, column 1 after '2' insert '18'.

No. 100, in page 69, line 36, at end insert—
'The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c. 78) Schedule 20 paragraph 3.
If objection is made by excepted statutory undertakers.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 11

AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 70, line 28, at end insert—

'THE BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT 1926

2A. In prescribing anything for the purposes of section 1 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1926, the Registrar General may make separate provision in connection with burials in Wales and burials in England; and in prescribing anything for the purposes of section 3 of that Act he may make separate provision in relation to the notification of registrars in Wales and the notification of registrars in England.'.

No. 102, in page 71, line 3, at end insert—

'THE MARRIAGE ACT 1949

6A. At the end of section 74 of the Marriage Act 1949 there shall be added the words" and may make separate provision in connection with marriages in Wales or notices given to, or certificates or licences issued by, persons in Wales".'.

No. 103, in page 72, line 21, at end insert—

THE BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION ACT 1953

11A. Section 39 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 shall become section 39 (1) and at the end of it there shall be added—
(2) The power to make regulations under this section includes power to make separate provision in connection with births or deaths in Wales or registration in Wales.

THE REGISTRATION SERVICE ACT 1953

11B. The Registrar General shall for the purposes of section 19 of the Registration Service Act 1953 prepare separate general abstracts relating to registrations in England and registrations in Wales; and so much of that section

as provides for an abstract to be laid before each House of Parliament shall not apply to an abstract relating to registrations in Wales.

11C. At the end of section 20 of that Act there shall be added the words "and the power to make regulations under this section includes power to make separate provision in connection with the registration service in Wales."'.

No. 104, in page 75, line 30, leave out 'and'.

No. 105, in page 75, line 35, at end add '; and
(e) after subsection (6) there shall be added—
(7) The Welsh Assembly shall not charge a committee with the exercise of its power to make orders under this section ".'.

No. 106, in page 76, line 5, at end insert—

'THE MARRIAGE (REGISTRAR GENERAL'S LICENCE) ACT 1970

29A. At the end of section 18(2) of the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970 there shall be added the words "and power to make separate provision in connection with marriages in Wales."'.

No. 107, in page 84, leave out line 2 and insert—
'88.—(1) The Secretary of State may give directions to the Assembly as to the exercise of any of its functions under sections 29 and 34 to 43 of the National Health Service Act 1977, and the Assembly shall give effect to any such directions.
(2) The power of the Secretary of State under this paragraph includes power to require functions to be conferred on him by or under regulations made by the Assembly.
88A. In section 111(1) of that Act, for'.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 122].

Orders of the Day — COLONSAY (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacCormick: When I originally hoped to have a debate on the electricity supply on the Isle of Colonsay, I could not have anticipated the events of yesterday—chiefly the fact that the SNP candidate who will represent Colonsay on the Strathclyde Regional Council was successful in defeating


the Conservatives and putting the Labour Party into a poor third place.
Lest it be said that I am being unfair to the Government, I should like to pay a tribute to the forebears of the present holders of ministerial office. The Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act 1943 was the brainchild of the late Tom Jackson, M.P., and was supposed to take electricity to every part of the Highlands and to every small village and island. I greatly support that Act, which was one of the fine things that the Labour Party of those days decided to do.
There is a second thing that I admire the Labour Party for doing, namely, for creating the Highlands and Islands Development Board in more recent times. It is significant that between them the Hydro-Electric Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, with the valuable assistance of the British Army, set up a scheme to give the people of the Isle of Colonsay some sort of electricity supply. It is not a perfect electricity supply. For most people it is available for only 12 hours a day, but it provides one of the staffs of life to the people there.
As the Member for the constituency with most islands in it, certainly on the western side of the country, I wonder how one compares one island with another. On Tiree all the electricity consumed is produced on the island by a diesel-powered station. Clearly there is no way in which the people of Tiree are being supplied with electricity at what we would call an economic rate, but the Hydro-Electric Board has made plain that the people of Tiree, Islay, Mull and all the other islands in my constituency where all or part of the electricity is generated by diesel power on the islands will pay comparable tariffs to those paid by those of us on the mainland who are more fortunate.
I feel strongly that one of the things that should inspire any Government with any feeling for small communities is the determination to decide to create conditions on islands such as Colonsay so that people can live there and young people can be encouraged to stay.
For 10 years I was a schoolmaster at Oban High School and I taught many of the children from Colonsay. I felt sad that the more we taught those children, the more likely it was that they

would leave and make their living elsewhere. I remain convinced that, if it had been more easy for them to make their living on Colonsay and if conditions there had been more easily balanced with those elsewhere, it would have been easier for them to decide to stay where they had been brought up and where they belonged.
If I may touch the Minister of State at all on any raw mark, I should ask: would not provision of the sum which would be necessary to equalise Colonsay's charges which are four times the amount that I pay in the town of Oban for my electricity, be a tremendous step in the right direction for the young and, indeed, the old people of Colonsay?
The Minister of State must be well aware that in communities such as Colonsay—this is mirrored elsewhere throughout the Western Isles—one of the hardships that people have to face is that they are living in ageing communities. It is all very well to thank the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Army for providing a scheme. But is it enough to thank them? Is it not more to the point to look carefully into how these people will pay the tariffs which are now charged? As I have said, the tariffs charged on the island of Colonsay are by and large four times greater than those charged on the mainland. They are four times the tariffs charged on the islands of Tiree, Mull and Islay, all of which have similar arrangements for the generation of electricity.
I know that the people of Colonsay are highly subsidised in other ways. For example, I know that, through the transport system, the MacBrayne Company, which runs the steamer to Colonsay, if asked to charge a reasonable or economic fare, would have to ask £120 for every person who travelled to Colonsay. That means local people as well as any tourists who might care to visit the island.
If, on the one hand, we are prepared to supply that kind of subsidy to the people who live there and to those who visit the island, ought we not also, in view of the relatively paltry sums involved, to think of making up the difference between what the Minister of State, myself and everyone else, even in Argyll, pays and what the people of the island of Colonsay pay? After all, only 50


households are involved—about 100 people—and that would not break the nation's purse.

11.23 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): I do not want to begin my speech tonight by making a grudging comment on the opening remarks made by the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick). Far be it from me to do so, since obviously on a day such as today I am possessed of the spirit of Christian charity, enthusiasm or whatever one might call it. I am delighted if the hon. Gentleman is pleased with his little game in the Strathclyde Region. I note only that there are now more Members on the Scottish National Party Bench in this House—all three of them—than will sit in the Strathclyde Regional Council.
But that is not the purpose of the debate. It is to discuss the hon. Gentleman's proposition that the Hydro Board should in some way subsidise the people who live on Colonsay. I think that the hon. Gentleman put the points fairly, but if I go over some of them again I hope that he will excuse me as I want to get them on the record.
The hon. Gentleman said that many who live on the mainland of Scotland take for granted the supply of electricity which has always been available to us. I am conscious that it is not available on Colonsay. But the Colonsay Community Electricity Association is to be congratulated on the steps which it has taken, albeit with a considerable range of assistance from public bodies—I shall come to them later—to create a generating and distribution system for the island.
There is one thing that I want to make crystal clear in this Adjournment debate. I think that the House knows exactly the extent of my personal responsibility and that of the Secretary of State in this matter.
As the hon. Member knows, responsibility for the supply of electricity in the Highlands and Islands rests fairly and squarely with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The choice of areas which can be given a supply of electricity and the determination of priorities for connecting areas which have no public supply are matters for the

Board. This is a management matter and it would not be appropriate for me to intervene. The hon. Member wrote to the Board on 26th April. That was only a few days ago. He should wait until the chairman of the Board and his colleagues decide what to do.
It might be helpful if I summarise the difficulties. I am grateful for the kindly references that the hon. Member made to the Board. Since the vesting date in 1948, the Hydro Board has provided a supply to an additional 330,000 customers. The total of 520,000 now connected represents 98·5 per cent. of potential consumers in the Board's district, and of this total some 115,000 consumers who cannot be provided with a supply economically have been connected in rural areas at a capital cost of about £27 million and a continuing annual loss.
The remaining potential consumers are mostly in areas where access is difficult and the costs of connection are extremely high. It is the Board's intention to provide most of these potential consumers with a mains supply as quickly as possible, having regard to the constraints involved. To this end, the Board has embarked on a five-year rural development programme by the end of which, in 1982, a further 1,400 consumers will have been connected at a cost of nearly £6 million. By that date, 99 per cent. of potential consumers will have been connected to a mains supply. The magnitude of this achievement is brought into perspective when one takes into account the fact that the Board's district covers about one-quarter of the land area of the United Kingdom but has only some 2 per cent. of its population. That is to the Board's credit.

Mr. MacCormick: Can the Minister confirm that the 99 per cent. does not include the people of Colonsay?

Mr. MacKenzie: That is right, but I have dealt already with the problem. I shall return to it. I have stressed my responsibility. All that I am doing is setting the proper scene for an Adjournment debate.
Before the Colonsay Community Electricity Association was established, there were four small local electricity schemes on the island. In 1975, Highlands and Islands Development Board staff examined the electricity supply situation as a


whole on Colonsay and concluded, following discussions with the Hydro Board, that a community generating and distribution scheme would be a practical and sensible replacement for the four existing schemes. The Highlands Board then organised a series of public meetings on Colonsay at which the community indicated its support for the idea of a locally managed electrification scheme.
The possible unit costs of the electricity supply were discussed at many of these meetings on the island and it was always stressed that, while units costs of 7p or 8p were being talked about, those figures were provisional and, with several other considerations, it could not be assumed that the unit costs would in practice be of that level. I have been assured by the Highlands Board that these considerations were understood and accepted by the hon. Member's constituents.
The hon. Member would wish to give credit to the HIDB for deciding to provide considerable financial assistance for the construction of the scheme. He said that it was churlish not to provide more support for the scheme. It is worth noting, however, that by the beginning of 1977 a scheme involving capital expenditure of £22,000 had been decided upon. The Highlands Board offered a grant of £12,500 towards the construction of the scheme. Strathclyde Regional Council, which is a good authority which looks after the interests of the people of Strathclyde well and will do so even better in future, provided £5,000. The Argyll and Bute District Council provided £2,500.
The Hydro Board itself contributed some £4,250 through the Highlands Board, together with technical assistance and help with the procurement of materials. The Hydro Board made it clear, however, that this contribution implied no responsibility on its part for the establishment and maintenance of the scheme and that no further financial assistance would be made available. The Colonsay Community Electricity Association was required to provide £1,000 towards the capital cost of the scheme, to be raised by means of a levy on subscribers.
The hon. Member referred to the fact that we are all very grateful to the Army for arranging a training exercise on Colonsay in 1977, during which most of

the work involved in installing equipment for the generating station and overhauling the distribution system was carried out. The HIDB and the local association would, like the hon. Member and myself, wish to express, I think, their very genuine appreciation to the soldiers who carried out that work.
Actual expenditure involved turned out to be considerably in excess of the sums contributed. The HIDB therefore decided, in March of this year, to increase its contribution to the association by some £12,000 to cover these increased costs.
I mention these various sums because I think it important to record that, far from being complacent about small communities such as Colonsay, the HIDB, the regional council, the district authority and the Hydro Board have made very substantial contributions to the capital costs involved.
I know, as the hon. Member has said, that the price of electricity produced is high. The cost is about 11p per unit as compared with the 2p or 3p which we pay on the mainland. But, although costs are high, the community electricity scheme represents a bargain for the people of the island in respect of the cost of connection. I have already mentioned the contribution to the capital cost made by the community, which amounted to about £1,000. On average, that represents about £20 per consumer. By contrast, the current standard charge for new connections to the public supply applied throughout the Hydro Board's district amounts to about £90, which is a very much higher connection charge than may be required from individual consumers in remote parts of the mainland.
The Highlands Board and all the other public bodies involved have ensured that the capital costs of installing the local system have not placed a burden on the Colonsay community. As I said earlier, I think that the various organisations concerned have been very generous to the people who live there. The hon. Member has mentioned that there are about 50 possible consumers and that there is a population of about 100. I do not deny that they have a right to these things, but I am bound to say that I think that the various authorities have been very helpful to the people of Colonsay.
Whilst I should like to give a more positive response, I can only say in conclusion that which I said at the beginning of my comments. We have a Hydro-Electric Board. It has certain responsibilities. It is no part of my duty and obligation as a Minister of the Crown to tell it how to do its job. I think that it

would be in the best interests of all concerned if the hon. Member awaited the reply to the letter that he wrote on 26th April to the chairman of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Twelve o'clock.

Orders of the Day — Second Reading Committee

Wednesday 3rd May 1978

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. John Spence (in the Chair)


Archer, Mr. Peter (Solicitor-General)
Miscampbell, Mr. Norman (Blackpool, North)


Bell, Mr. Ronald (Beaconsfield)



Berry, Mr. Anthony (Southgate)
Price, Mr. Christopher (Lewisham, West)


Buck, Mr. Antony (Colchester)
Ryman, Mr. John (Blyth)


Crowder, Mr. F. P. (Ruislip-Northwood)
Sandelson, Mr. Neville (Hayes and Harlington)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred (Moray and Nairn)



Havers, Sir Michael (Wimbledon)
Sever, Mr. John (Birmingham, Ladywood)


Kershaw, Mr. Anthony (Stroud)
White, Mr. Frank R. (Bury and Radcliffe)


Lyons, Mr. Edward (Bradford, West)
Wilson, Mr. William (Coventry, South-East)

Orders of the Day — STATE IMMUNITY BILL [Lords]

10.32 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the State Immunity Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
If someone were told that the Bill was being taken in Second Reading Committee and that the Committee consisted almost entirely of practising lawyers, he might be forgiven for concluding that it was a technical measure of no practical consequence. He would be right about its being a technical measure, but its practical consequences are real, and are of two kinds.
First, the Bill may help to ensure that individuals who have claims against foreign States may obtain redress in circumstances where previously they would have had no redress. Second, it has a part to play in building a body of international law relevant to the needs of the 1970s and 1980s, commanding a wide measure of agreement and with a real prospect of being applied across a wide sector of the world.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to prescribe in statutory form the immunity from suit which foreign States shall be entitled to claim from the jurisdiction of the courts in the United Kingdom. The present rules are embodied in the common law, and originally the rule was simple and absolute. It can, perhaps, best be summarised in the words of Lord Atkin in the case of "The Cristina" in 1938, which were quoted by my noble Friend in the other place on Second Reading—this is column 52 of the Official Report, 17th January, Lord Atkin said that there were two basic elements: first,
that the courts of a country will not implead a foreign Sovereign, that is, that they will not by their process make him against his will a party to legal proceedings where the proceedings involve proceedings against his person or seek to recover from him specific property or damages";
and second,
that they will not by their process, whether the Sovereign is a party to the proceedings or not, seize or detain property which is his.
That doctrine arose as a matter of reciprocal respect, when it was felt that


for one State to assume jurisdiction over another was inconsistent with sovereign equality between States.
But the rule attracted criticism at least as long ago as 1873 when another great commercial judge, Sir Robert Phillimore, in the case of the "Charkieh", said:
No principle of international law, and no decided case, and no dictum of jurists of which I am aware, has gone so far as to authorise a sovereign prince to assume the character of a trader, when it is for his benefit; and when he incurs an obligation to a private subject to throw off, if I may so speak, his disguise, and appear as a sovereign, claiming for his own benefit, and to the injury of a private person, … all the attributes of that character.
How far the common law on the matter is capable of changing, and how far it has in fact changed, was recently discussed at some length in the court of Appeal in the case of Trendtex Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria. In another place there was some discussion about how much light would be shed on the debates relating to this Bill when that decision was considered by the Appellate Committee in the other place. I am now informed that the case has been settled and that, consequently, we shall be denied what would certainly have been a constructive and a fascinating decision.
What is certain is that in this generation, when States engage widely in commercial activities and generally do many things which in earlier times would not have been associated with the jus imperii, Sir Robert Phillimore's pronouncement is increasingly frequently of practical application. In the Trendtex case, the Master of the Rolls said:
In the last 50 years there has been a complete transformation in the functions of a sovereign State. Nearly every country now engaged in commercial activities. It has its departments of State—or creates its own legal entities—which go into the market places of the world. They charter ships. They buy commodities. They issue letters of credit. This transformation has changed the rules of international law relating to sovereign immunity. Many countries have now departed from the rule of absolute immunity. So many have departed from it that it can no longer be considered a rule of international law. It has been replaced by a doctrine of restrictive immunity.
The immunity of States is not a matter which ought long to be left in an area of doubt. It affects the rights and duties

of individuals, and it has important effects on international trade and finance.
The first internationally agreed move away from absolute immunity occurred in relation to maritime law. A diplomatic conference in Brussels produced in 1926 a convention on State owned ships which, broadly speaking, sought to place commercial ships operated by States in the same position as if they were privately owned. It was supplemented by a protocol in 1934. The United Kingdom participated in the discussions and signed the 1926 convention in that year.
The Convention and Protocol have now been ratified by a large number of maritime countries, but plans to implement its provisions in this country were overtaken by the outbreak of war. For one reason or another, we have never been able to ratify. This Bill will now, at last, bring our law into line with the provisions of that convention and the protocol and enable the United Kingdom to ratify them. The relevant provisions are found in Clause 10 and parts of Clause 13.
There may be hon. Members who remember the concern expressed in both Houses in 1949 when the Tass Agency was sued for defamation, and the Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings on the ground that the agency was a department of the Soviet State and entitled to immunity.
An interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord Somervell was then appointed to examine whether our law accorded the organs of foreign States immunity wider than was desirable or than was strictly required by international law. But the committee's report was somewhat inconclusive as to what international law required, and it was troubled by the problem of drawing a sufficiently precise distinction between sovereign activities, on the one hand, and trading, commercial or industrial activities, on the other.
The Government of the day did not feel justified in taking any action, and the rule of absolute immunity continued to be followed in the courts of this country, while in the rest of the world it began increasingly to give way to practices denying immunity in respect of commercial activities. Probably the most significant change came in 1952, when


the State Department of the United States declared, in the Tate letter, that it had examined contemporary State practice and had reached the conclusion that immunity should not be granted, inter alia, in respect of a foreign State's commercial activities.
The rule of absolute immunity followed by the courts of the United Kingdom has been widely criticised, and it was against this background that in the early 1960s the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers of the day encouraged an examination of the current international law and practice, and the possibility of an international convention on State immunity, by the member States of the Council of Europe. This led to the European Convention on State Immunity, which was opened for signature in May 1972. One of the objectives of the Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to ratify that convention.
Although parts of the Bill are modelled on the convention, its provisions are more radical than the convention. Initially, the Bill followed the convention in most respects, but it was pointed out in another place, particularly by Lord Wilberforce and Lord Denning, that in restricting itself in that way the Bill might lead to a situation where the United Kingdom courts continue to recognise immunity in circumstances where it would not be generally recognised in international law. My noble Friend listened carefully to what was said, as might be expected of him, and he was persuaded.
I wish, therefore, to spend a few moments explaining the background, and why we have gone substantially further in removing immunity than the European convention would require us to do.
Hon. Members will recognise that there are three distinct legal concepts which we shall consider in our proceedings on the Bill. First, there are grounds on which the courts of this country will assume jurisdiction over a dispute. If the dispute has nothing to do with this country or any of its citizens, the courts will normally not entertain proceedings and the question of claiming immunity will not arise.
Second, there are the rules governing State and diplomatic immunity once the courts have accepted jurisdiction. Third, there are the rules relating to the enforce-

ment of judgments once the court has proceeded to deliver judgment.
A basic feature of the convention is that contracting States assume an obligation to give effect to judgments given against them in the courts of other contracting States. A convention which simply sets out the cases in which the courts of a State could assume jurisdiction over other States, overruling claims to immunity, would have had little interest for those States which, unlike the United Kingdom, already assumed jurisdiction very extensively. For them, the interest of a convention lay in securing the recognition and enforcement of judgments given against the foreign State.
A consequence of this basic feature is that, broadly, the convention provides that claims to immunity will be rejected only where the territorial connection with the court which assumes jurisdiction is sufficient to warrant recognition and enforcement of its judgment by other convention States.
It is our intention to apply the principles of the Bill to all States, whether parties to the convention or not. In relation to those not parties to the convention, there is, of course, no need to restrict our courts in that way. For example, we do not need to say that immunity in relation to commercial activities shall depend on whether an obligation falls to be performed in the United Kingdom. But we can say that it is not to be accorded in relation to any such activities where our courts accept jurisdiction.
Again, the convention embodies the principle that execution may not be levied against the property of a State without its consent. This is a corollary of the basic features that each contracting State accepts an obligation to give effect to judgements given against it by the courts of another contracting State where the case falls within the catalogue of cases where immunity is not to be accorded. As the defendant State will give effect to the judgment, there is no need for execution to be levied.
But there is far less cause for affording foreign States immunity from execution if they are not under any binding obligation to comply with our judgments. Consequently, Clause 13 removes immunity from execution to the full extent to which we believe it is permissible to


do so under current international law and practice.
While introducing this far-reaching curtailment of State immunity, we can still ratify the European convention. Article 24 of the convention permits a contracting State to declare that its courts shall be entitled to entertain proceedings against a contracting State, even where the case does not fall within the express provisions limiting immunity, to the extent that they are entitled to entertain them in relation to States that are not parties to the convention.
Between contracting States that make declarations under Article 24 there is then an obligation to give effect to judgments on that wider basis, while other States which have made no such declaration are freed of their obligations to recognise and enforce the wider category of judgments, so it would thus be reciprocal.
I began by referring to the case of Trendtex Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria. In that case the Court of Appeal, by a majority, declined to follow the older authorities and rejected a claim to sovereign immunity by the defendants where the matter in dispute concerned commercial transactions. It declared that the common law must follow the movement of international law and practice and that, on the research available to the court, the rules of international law had changed significantly.
Similarly, the Privy Council, in the case of the "Philippine Admiral" in 1976 held that in actions in rem against ships, immunity will not be accorded to a vessel owned by a foreign Government if it is being used either by the Government itself, or by a third party, for trading purposes and is not intended to be used for public purposes.
The line adopted by the Bill accords generally with the doctrine developed in those cases. Indeed, the fact that the Court of Appeal arrived at its conclusions in Trendtex after an extensive examination of recent decisions in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the United States will offer the House some reassurance that what the Bill seeks to do accords with the current state of international practice.
It may be suggested that these recent decisions remove the necessity for

legislation in this field and that it may be left to the courts to develop the law. The Government believe that that would not be right. There is always the possibility that one day these questions may fall to be decided judicially in another place, and it may there be held that the courts ought to follow the older line of established precedence.
The law ought now to be firmly established by statute. Furthermore, the recent cases relate only to commercial transactions, whereas the Bill, following the European convention, removes immunity over a wider area of other activities where the State may not be acting commercially. Clauses 4 to 9 and 11 remove immunity in respect of many important matters which the recent cases do not touch.
There is a further important consideration which, in the Government's view, adds an element of urgency to this legislation. In 1976, the United States Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which renders foreign States amenable to the jurisdiction of the United States courts in respect of practically all non-sovereign activities and permits execution to be levied against their commercial assets.
The position now obtaining in the courts of the United States accords with the interests of all those who, in commerce or finance, engage in transactions with foreign States. Unless we change our law, much of the work connected with these transactions—an important invisible export—could be lost to this country. I believe that, for these reasons, the Bill will be welcomed in all parts of the Committee and of the House.
I shall now briefly draw attention to some of the major changes which the Bill is intended to bring about. Clause 2 provides that a State is not to be immune in respect of proceedings where it has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. It specifically provides that such submission may be contained in a prior written agreement. Under the common law, a State could disregard any prior written agreement and it would be bound only by a submission to jurisdiction made in the course of the proceedings before the court.
Clause 3, as amended in the other place, provides that a State shall not be


immune in respect of any acts in a commercial or similar capacity, and it singles out two particular activities where it is not always possible to determine whether the subject matter is commercial or not. In any event, the term "commercial transaction" is given a very wide meaning. It will cover all commercial, industrial, financial, professional, or similar activities—in short, almost anything that a State may do outside its sovereign authority.
Clause 13 permits execution against property used, or intended for use, for commercial purposes. Judgments given against the Crown in the courts of contracting States to the European convention will have to be recognised here; that is the result of Clause 18, and it corresponds with the obligation assumed by other contracting States to give effect to judgments given against them in the courts of the United Kingdom.
In respect of the rest of the world, we shall, of course, assume no such obligation. Indeed, we want to remain free to reduce their immunity still further should we find that they do not accord corresponding immunity to the United Kingdom. That is achieved by Clause 15, which also allows immunity to be extended where there is an international commitment to do so.
The Bill also provides an opportunity to clarify one or two other areas of uncertainty. The exact extent of the privileges and immunities of foreign Heads of State in their private capacity is difficult to ascertain from the decided cases. Clause 20 would equate the position of a Head of State with the position of an ambassador.
There is a degree of uncertainty about the ability of our authorities to sue foreign States for taxes, customs and other duties. We are taking the opportunity in Clause 11 to resolve those doubts.
I hope that the Bill commends itself to the Committee and the House as a useful measure of reform to codify and, I think, to clarify an area where clear guidance is needed. It will provide remedies in cases where they are sometimes at present unjustly denied, and it will bring our law on the immunity of foreign States more into line with current international practice. Those of us who discuss the Bill are unlikely to earn

wide coverage in the news media, but we may merit a footnote in the law books of the future.

10.52 a.m.

Sir Michael Havers: I thank the Solicitor-General for his helpful explanation of the Bill. May I offer congratulations, too, to the noble Lords Lord Denning and Lord Wilberforce, and to Baroness Elles, who in the other place did so much to improve the Bill. Also, while in a congratulating mood, may I congratulate the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor, and particularly his officials, who responded to the various amendments and did so much to improve the Bill between the time it was first put before the other place and its presentation to us. It is now a very much better Bill.
It is astonishing to see, from a reading of the Committee stage in the other House, how the proceedings ended up with five people right on top of their subject and all determined that this should be the best possible Bill to remove a difficulty which even I, as a lawyer, had not understood existed—this not being one of my specialities—that if a State entered into a contract with you, Mr. Spence, for example, on behalf of some large company, or as an individual, and in that contract the State had agreed to waive any right to immunity which it might subsequently have, that was an absolutely worthless paragraph in the contract and could not be binding upon that State at all—which seems a ridiculous situation.
That difficulty has now become of great importance, as the Solicitor-General has told us, because our law is now out of date in relation to recent legislation in the United States. Certainty now applies there, and this has had its effect upon the two great financial centres which have been dealing with these contracts because of the efficiency of their law and the lawyers and the ability to get a whole team of people together in one place, either in the City of London or in New York. The fact that a contracting party feels that in this country there may be some uncertainty about whether he can proceed against the State as the other contracting party or about whether a plea of immunity may be successful has already caused a great deal of the work that used to be


done in the City of London to go to New York.
Therefore, speed is essential. This is a substantial part of the work of the City and a substantial source of invisible earnings for our balance of payments. As was emphasised in the other place, and as the learned Solicitor-General has impressed upon us today, speed is of great importance in this matter.
I hope, therefore, that it will be thought right if on Second Reading I indicate certain matters which we consider could be further improved. It will be helpful to those who are assisting the learned Solicitor-General if, when the Bill goes into Committee, these matters are not raised for the first time when the amendments are seen but everybody is alerted today to the few important matters which need to be looked at and, if possible, further improved to make the Bill even better.
Clause 3 is virtually a new clause compared with the original. Its basic principle is that where a State has not expressly or impliedly submitted to the jurisdiction of a United Kingdom court under Clause 2, it will still lose its immunity in respect of commercial, industrial, financial or other similar activities provided that it has not entered into them
in the exercise of sovereign authority".
By virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3), it is not necessary to decide whether in the cases there covered there was an exercise of sovereign authority, but in other cases it may be so. This has been one of the very difficult problems about which lawyers have had to advise their clients over the years. The law is by no means clear. I shall spare the Committee the technical details, but there are occasions when it is very difficult to advise somebody on the law. We may find yet again that lack of certainty could arise in those special cases in this country, again creating the result which exists at the moment—that people would prefer to go to New York where there is absolute certainty.
Those who had argued that the Bill was premature because of the Trendtex case pending in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords have now, of course, had that objection struck from under them. I am rather sad about that. I should have liked to see what the

Appellate Committee made of Trendtex, because it is one of the most interesting cases in international law that there has been for a long time.
To summarise our views on Clause 3, we consider either that there should be a suitable definition—if it can be devised—of what is meant by
in the exercise of sovereign authority
or we might consider whether those words could be taken out altogether, though I appreciate that that would be a substantial step.
Many loans are made not directly to a State but to a Government agency and guaranteed by the State. This goes back to the case where "the exercise of sovereign authority" cannot arise directly. If the State is not immune in respect of a loan raised by it, regardless of its purpose, as at present provided, it would seem entirely logical that the State should be similarly not immune in respect of a lesser liability. It should not therefore have an immunity when it is merely acting as guarantor when it has no immunity when it is the borrower. I hope that that point will be taken on board and considered.
I think that that could be covered by an amendment on these lines—
… any guarantee given by a State in respect of any financial obligation, irrespective of the purposes for which the obligation was incurred"—
or something of that kind. The learned Solicitor-General and I were brought up on the old principle that the greater includes the lesser. On that principle, it must logically do so here, though I think that at the moment it might be excluded.
Clause 13 is very important. It involves the remedies which can be granted by the courts, including interlocutory relief in certain cases. I shall avoid the technicalities of what a Mareva injunction is. I believe that the noble Lord Lord Denning is our greatest expert on the Mareva injunction. But it seems that the position left by the present drafting is as follows. It is possible for a judgment to be enforced against the property of a State, other than central bank funds, without its consent if such property is used for commercial purposes, but it is not possible to obtain without the consent of the State interlocutory relief by way,


for example, of a Mareva injunction in respect of such property.
In Committee in the other place, on 16th March, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Denning both emphasised the need for interlocutory relief in respect of assets used for commercial purposes. Obeying the rule, I shall not directly quote what Lord Wilberforce said, but I shall summarise its effect. He said that it was important, if English courts are to have jurisdiction over assets used for commercial purposes and are to be able ultimately to lay hands on them at the suit of a British company, that in a suitable case, subject, of course, to reservations, jurisdiction should exist to grant injunctions.
Therefore, one of the matters we shall be considering in Committee is whether interlocutory relief should be available against a State without its consent in respect of property—other than central bank funds, which have always had to be treated separately which is in use or intended for use for commercial purposes.
It has always been accepted that for the purposes of enforcement of judgments the funds belonging to a State's central bank are regarded as the property of that State, but they are not so regarded for the purposes of interlocutory relief, which, again, is a slightly curious result. This means that a central bank as a separate entity, within the meaning of Clause 14 as it stands, would not normally be immune from interlocutory proceedings but its assets would be immune for the purpose of enforcement proceedings unless the State concerned had consented.
In those circumstances, it would seem to us to be more logical if funds belonging to a central bank were deemed to be the property of the State both for purposes of interlocutory relief and for purposes of enforcement proceedings. If the principle applies in relation to enforcement proceedings, it seems difficult to understand why there should be a different principle when one is dealing with interlocutory relief.
Central banks always occupy a curious position. They are very independent—certainly our Bank of England is—and one knows of a number of central banks of foreign States which are very jealous of their independence, which they carefully guard. We believe that problems

could arise under local law with regard to the capacity of a State to consent on behalf of a central bank to proceedings being taken against funds.
Therefore, it seems to us certaintly to be a matter for consideration that it might be preferable for Clause 13 to be modified to provide that neither interlocutory relief nor enforcement proceedings should be available against the funds of a central bank without written consent, such consent—perhaps adopting the United States legislation to be given either by the central bank or by the State on its behalf.
Clause 23 was an attempt to avoid any retrospection. This was the result of speeches in the other place, because originally there had been a degree of retrospection which, quite apart from the natural repugnance that all parliamentarians hold about retrospection, also had the difficulty that it might lead to a loss of trust and faith in our English system if a State had entered into a contractual liability, relying upon the law as it then stood, and then suddenly found, having chosen the law of England as the law of the contract, that English law had changed retrospectively. That could well destroy such faith. I believe that there will be very few occasions which would be so affected, but it could destroy the faith of such a contracting country, which is the one thing that we are most anxious should not happen.
It is quite clear that in the other place there was a determination to avoid retrospection, and that, I believe, is why Clause 23 was amended in that sense. Subsection (3) provides that the Bill
does not apply to proceedings in respect of matters that occurred before the coming into force of this Act; and section 9 above applies only where the arbitration agreement is made after the coming into force of this Act.
I do not want to go into technicalities—I have already had a word with the learned Solicitor-General and I believe that he accepts this but we believe that there are occasions when retrospection could, unintentionally, apply. The noble Lord, Lord O'Brien—representing, one might say, the City interests in the other place—pointed out the dangers that would follow from any form of retrospection. I believe that this is a matter under consideration by those advising the Lord Chancellor, so I merely say that we also


are anxious about it and hope that a tightening-up amendment can be achieved before we reach Committee.
I apologise for the detail. I hope that it has been helpful to those who are preparing for the passage of the Bill through the House. We welcome the Bill and look forward to its becoming the law of the land as soon as possible.

11.3 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman both for his kind words and for his constructive approach to the Bill. It is clear that we are agreed on the urgency of the Bill reaching the statute book and that we share a concern that it shall be as effective as possible for its purpose.
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, too, for the indications which he gave in advance of the Committee stage of the matters which he proposes to raise so that I may consider them, together with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. Clearly, no useful purpose would be served by my commenting on them at this stage, except to say, on the question of retrospection, that I had it in mind to table an amendment in Committee. In respect of both that and the other matters raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, some consultations between us in advance of the Committee

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Spence, Mr. John (Chairman)
Price, Mr. Christopher


Berry, Mr.
Ryman, Mr.


Buck, Mr.
Sever, Mr.


Havers, Sir M.
Solicitor-General, The


Miscampbell, Mr.
White, Mr. Frank R.

may spare the Committee a certain amount of time when the day comes.

It was suggested to me a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Lord Commissioner that we might proceed to the Committee stage this morning, but I think that that would be a little too optimistic. Clearly, the amendments will have to be drafted and we shall have to discuss them with my noble Friend. But one may hope that the Committee will not be delayed unduly when the times comes, especially since I understand that no other hon. Member has any particular views on any of the matters that have been raised.

I think that we need not trouble the Committee any further this morning, unless any of my hon. Friends wish to raise any matter. I hope that in due course, when the Bill reaches the statute book, the outcome will be, as a consequence of the contributions made to it by a number of legal minds in both Houses, something of which we shall all have reason to be satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the State Immunity Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

Committee rose at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.